Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive387

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Amaury (Result: Moved to WP:AE)

Page

Big Time Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "it's not an independent clause, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, but I'll leave it to others to fix; meanwhile fixing mid-sentence capitalization of definite articles beginning a band's name"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2011–12: Elevate and film */ lc"
   2. 18:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2013–14: 24/Seven */ lc"
   3. 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
   4. 18:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2009–10: Formation and BTR */ nowhere does any of that MoS claptrap say to capitalize a dependent clause following a colon"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC) to 10:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 10:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "no, a dependent clause following a colon is lowercase"
   2. 10:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
   3. 10:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
4. 05:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2009–10: Formation and BTR */ lc"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Big Time Rush (band). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns */ new section"

Comments:

Note that they reverted my edit warring warning, calling me a troll. They clearly have WP:CIR issues. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User is an obvious meatpuppet (admits as much on his user page), and editing in clear violation of long-standing convention. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Point out where I admit this; otherwise, you are violating WP:NPA. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You call GP your "colleague". What other reason could you have for repeatedly editing the page in clear violation of MOS:THEMUSIC? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It's not surprising in the least that there are people who work together or share interests in the same things. Unless you have concrete proof that there's meatpuppetry, I suggest strike your accusations, especially since you're not right here. On top of your disruptive editing and violation of 3RR and refusal to follow WP:BRD, with the addition of personal attacks, that is more than enough grounds for a block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made a request at WP:RPP to temporarily fully-protect this article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Wasn't Joefromrandb blocked for an extended time at one point, with the understanding that, if he kept edit-warring, he'd be indeffed? pbp 19:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I don't have any personal knowledge of previous incidences, but taking a quick look, it seems like it, as their last block wasn't just a block, it was an arbitration block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others#One-revert restriction perhaps? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

An admin could issue a one-month initial block under the arb case if they agree that Joefromrandb violated their 1RR restriction. If, on the other hand, an admin believes that an indef block is a better choice, they can open a request for one at WP:ARCA. The dispute above is about WP:MOS and the styling of words, so there is no issue of vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

An non-admin can file requests for enforcement too, and I've done so pbp 19:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note to admins: I don't participate in any discussions involving the above user. Please direct any correspondence to my talk page from this point. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Joe would seem to be on thin ice in terms of edit warring, and he does appear to still have a 1RR restriction in effect, but even with those points given as an aggravating circumstance, in the interest of simple fairness, I find it difficult to harshly sanction him in this situation, in which he was making correct edits in accordance with an unequivocal MOS guideline. I know we hold that "being right" in an edit war isn't an excuse, and I know that Joe is subject to severe sanctions if edit warring issues continue. But, given that he was simply enforcing MOS compliance in this case, and those reverting him were doing so with absolutely no good reason beyond MOS ignorance, and that he has agreed to abide by a 1RR restriction going forward, I'm inclined to let this slide with no action. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Remember, though, that all MOS pages are guidelines. As I quoted on the talk page of the article in question, they are suggested best practices to follow, but they aren't policies or top-down rules that must be absolutely followed and common sense should be applied as there are exceptions. Right or wrong aside, this is still a violation of 1RR—in fact, they even violated the regular 3RR. This isn't obvious vandalism, which is why both myself and GP decided to just leave it alone, but even after another user stepped in, they couldn't accept that consensus was against them.

Now, Swarm, EdJohnston, if the edit warring isn't bad enough, their WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, both of which are policies, violations are even worse. As I mentioned above, they reverted my edit warring warning and called me a troll, which could fall under a personal attack as well, in addition to the baseless accusations of me and the others being meatpuppets. They are being uncivil and making personal attacks over at the article talk page: Talk:Big Time Rush (band)#Capitalization after colons and capitalization of proper nouns. IJBall left them a warning for that, but Joe reverted him and called it vandalism. I mean, it's all pretty bad.

For reference, Purplebackpack89 has opened concerns at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Joefromrandb. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Since Purplebackpack99 has opened a thread at WP:AE, further discussion should take place over there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Merphee reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: The Australian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merphee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

This is not the first time Merphee has broken 3RR on this page. I file a separate report a while ago, which got the page protected for 12 hours. I and other editors have made substantial effort to reach any sort of middleground with Merphee. I do not believe that they are interested. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Merphee seems to have broken 3RR more than once now, with the justification that two people undoing his reverts is a "tag team" and a "technical" violation of WP:3RR. This makes it all the more strange why they make four reverts in a short amount of time, not merely a technicality of a violation, and showing that they have been very aware, at least on two occasions, of policy regarding this. Merphee has "apologised" for this before, the sincerity of which has been doubted from their refusal to undo their revert, and I think this instance shows they have no intention of stopping. However, what concerns me is being accused of forming part of a "tag team" or some other kind of conspiracy whenever I happen to agree with someone or make edits that are similar or complementary to someone else's. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That is complete rubbish Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth. You were both Wikipedia:Tag teaming and edit warring. Multiple editors have agreed and have made comments. It aint just me who's observed it. It's there in front of anyone who cares to read the thread. Here are just a few other editor's assessment of their daylight tag teaming, bad faith editing and edit warring. This one [8] and another editor's same conclusion here for the edit warring and bad faith and provocative edit made during the discussion [9] and here [10] and [11] and then here from yet another editor, saying how they thought it odd that the notifier PeterTheFourth, was also clearly edit warring and each of us should have received a block [12]. I mean it was absolute classic tag teaming no doubt about it. Twice. Two weeks apart. I've served my block, which was fair enough because I breached the 3RR rule. But why are these two tag teamers getting away with their tag teaming to circumvent the normal process of consensus by coordinating their actions to sidestep the 3RR policy? And if no sanctions are applied to these editor's edit warring, further disruption and a compromised article will continue on Talk:The Australian as they both have now jammed in a bold bad faith edit right in the middle of the 'consensus building process'. Not cool. I have made this edit today [13] over at Talk:The Australian to help us move toward a long term resolution to this ongoing debate and one that another editor has pointed out has been going on for 10 years.  ::However before a resolution can be reached can sanctions be applied to Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth @Swarm:? Not sure if I am supposed to open a fresh report against them both for tag teaming and edit warring and disruption with their bad faith edits during talk page discussion or just post here as I've done? Merphee (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And here is Onetwothreeip edit warring once again @Swarm:. Thankfully another civil minded editor has put a stop to it and restored the article to the version it was before Onetwothreeip/PeterTheFourth jammed in their contentious preferred version in bad faith. [14]. Onetwothreeip also refuses to discuss the possibility of using dispute resolution which I've suggested multiple times or tell other editors if they are in support of a very reasonable proposal made by another editor earlier this month. Here is my latest attempt to try and resolve this long term over at Talk:The Australian [15]. Merphee (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:195.60.233.242 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ark of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

195.60.233.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ from the wikipedia page of Kapporet (is it good now?"
2. 21:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ wtvr"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) to 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ to the one who reverted my edit pls read the Wikipedia page on Kapporet"
   2. 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */"
4. 20:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Construction and description */ Jewish tradition to define things that are sourced from judaism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ark of the Covenant. (Using Twinkle"
2. 21:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ark of the Covenant. (Using Twinkle"
3. 21:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ark of the Covenant. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours for vandalism at Talk:Climate change: removing others' comments. The IP was also edit warring on this article, on whether Jewish or Christian terminology ought to be used. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Kleuske reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)

Page

Eric Weinstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "Ph. D. in Maths, publications on the subject. Hence he qualifies as a mathematician. Please seek consensus on the TP. Thanks. Undid revision 889107594 by Dfsfscasdq (talk)"
2. 08:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 90.241.121.154 (talk) to last version by Kleuske"
3. 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Per WP:V, WP:BLP. Source does not support claim. See TP."
4. 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "I bet he never wrote a paper on Tibetan funeral ceremonies, either. Nor did he win the Tour de France, the Boston Marathon of the Iron Man. The fact that he has never written a paper (i.e. scientific publication) on the subjects is irrelevant."
5. 9:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC) "Source?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems clear-cut. 4 reverts within 24 hours, and another revert the day after. Both editors discussed on talk, but that is not an excuse for edit warring AFAIK. If she isn't blocked, full page protection will be necessary. The other party in this dispute, new editor Dfsfscasdq, has also been edit warring (though did not break 3RR), but I only gave them a warning. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A claim that Weinstein isn’t a mathematician or has never written a paper on maths can be argued to be libelous, since the man holds a Ph.D. in maths and published several papers in that field. Denying him his publications and field of study is more than just a little insulting. Wikipedia stresses the importance of proper sources for BLP’s. None of it was actually sourced, the changes were contentious. BLP mandates reverting in such cases. If you want me blocked for taking BLP seriously, then so be it. Kleuske (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of the claim that Weinstein never published in mathematics or physics might be protected by WP:3RRNO since it appears badly sourced. (For instance, his thesis appears to qualify as a publication in physics. Also, how do you prove a negative without a source? -- people may not include all their publications in any particular resume). But whether 'mathematician' should be in the lead looks to be a regular issue of WP:Due weight which can only be settled by a consensus on the talk page. So continued reverting on the lead sentence should be blockable. User:Kleuske and User:Dfsfscasdq should pay attention to that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Stale Doesn't look like any admin wanted to act on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 1 week)

Page

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JohnTopShelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "originally put edit in wrong section; now put it where it belongs"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC) to 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

1RR violation for the third time on the same article for the same content. User was blocked for previous edit warring and sent to ANI for incivility and copyvio. Procedural only for this crusade to ram POV criticism into the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Note their entire edit appears to be a copyright violation in its totality. Their revisions might have to be entire revdelled.Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Owing to previous blocks, escalating to 1 week and filing as an Arbcom discretionary sanctions block. I didn't see an obvious copyvio when doing a Google search for random texts, but if another editor can confirm where it was copied from, we can handle that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I misclicked on my phone and I don’t have time to check fully. In their edit, Bill Gates was equally critical of Modern Monetary Theory, an economic theory popular with some politicians theorizing that government...” is entirely copied from [16] This ANI discussion found that almost all of this user’s large additions are flagrant copyright violations copy pasted from somewhere. Do we block people for rigorous copyvio? They’re clearly made aware of it. Pinging @Dr.K.: Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the copyvio so I've revision deleted those. We generally block indefinitely if a user's contributions are entirely or mostly copyvios; in this user's case the problematic behaviour has only started recently so a week will suffice for the moment. However, I think the next block will be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Tsumikiria. I have commented on the now blocked user's talkpage after the user made comments indicating he did not think he reverted anyone and that he was not edit-warring. Dr. K. 21:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:5.83.102.18 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

5.83.102.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889421785 by DonQuixote (talk) Removed material not supported by a proper secondary source."
2. 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889354748 by DonQuixote (talk) Removed inappropriate primary sources."
3. 04:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ Removed material based on primary sources as per regentspark's direction on the talk page."
4. 23:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC) "restored well-written and sourced material."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Viewer ratings */"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Hedgielamar reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked, 1 week)

Page: E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hedgielamar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:58, 25 March 2019
2. 08:32, 26 March 2019
3. 10:55, 26 March 2019
4. 11:11, 26 March 2019
5. 15:10, 26 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warned on March 11 by C.Fred
2. Warned on March 21 by Wallyfromdilbert
3. Warned on March 25 by Ronz
4. Warned on March 25 by Theroadislong

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:E. J. Levy#Edit war ongoing: Talk page discussion about this dispute involving those concerned started on March 11 by Hedgielamar; however, Hedgielamar seems to have abandoned the discussion anre reverted back to edit warring when the consensus appeared to be developing against their proposed changes.

Comments:
There's some serious edit warring going on at E. J. Levy involving multiple editors, sock puppetry and possible COI editing. I only came across this article at WP:BLPN#E.J. Levy and am not a party to the content dispute. Multiple reverts are being made back and forth, but the primary cause of the disruption appears to be Hedgielamar. This editor has been requested to discuss their concerns about the article content a number of times by different editors, but keeps reverting to their preferred version of the article. There have been user talk page posts made by mutliple editors also advising Hedgielamar to seek consensus for the changes they wish to make, but the reverts have continued. There's also be discussion on the article talk page as well, but the reverts still have continued. I've only posted the most recent diffs, but the content dispute/edit warring appears to have been going for at least a couple of weeks and possibly longer. Hedgielamar is the creator of the article so their concern over article content is some what understandable; article creators, however, don't get any final editorial control over article content and are expected to resolve content disputes per WP:DR just like anyone else. I think this edit sum left by C.Fred on March 25 sums things up quite well: Hedgielamar seems intent to continue edit warring until others grow tired and just give in. That kind of brute force battleground approach is starting to seriously indicate a WP:NOTHERE approach to editing that needs to be addressed. As a courtesy, pinging (in no particular order) C.Fred, Theroadislong, Ronz, Wallyfromdilbert, BushelCandle, Drmies, -sche and NekoKatsun since they have been editing the article. Patrice Starr and Caprae Lac also were involved, but they have been CU blocked per WP:SOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. After the two accounts above were blocked, Hedgielamar reverted until they individually crossed the 3RR threshold. As a second offence, I escalated the block to one week. I also cautioned them that any sockpuppetry would result in an indefinite block of their account. Any admin who feels this block is too short is free to extend it without consulting with me. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Crabin reported by User:Moscow Connection (Result: blocked 48 hours)

Page: Mariah Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crabin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Crabin's first two edits (25 March, 6:05 and 6:14)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 26 March, 4:46 and 4:49
2. 26 March, 5:01, 5:05 and 5:06
3. 26 March, 6:35
4. 26 March, 7:38, 7:39 and 7:46
5. 26 March, 9:36
6. 26 March, 10:22

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
A newly registered user has been adding more or less the same thing about "lack of apology" for over 24 hours now and would not stop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Crabin: The reason the agency filed complaint against Mariah Bell was because she didn't apologize. I stated a relevant fact and cited the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabin (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Below is Moscow Connection's very objective reason sent to me on why it shouldn't be added. Note that Mariah Bell didn't "touch" Eunsoo. She slashed her leg with a sharp blade.

Moscow Connection: Stop adding this <lack of apolgy> over and over. I don't think it's important or relevant. You don't have to apologize every time you touch somebody. She probably didn't think something serious had happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabin (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, she touched/scratched her with her blade. As Rafael Arutyunyan has put it, "she slightly scratched Lim Eun-soo's leg with her blade" ("лезвием конька она слегка чиркнула по голени Ынсу Лим") [19].
  And what matters here is that you have reverted multiple times, thus violating the three-revert rule. And I still don't agree to this change and if no one else reverts I will revert myself (in due time). And by the way your changes are unsourced, too. (I've looked at the sources you used and they don't say anything like that.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• RT translates it as "touched" so it's probably a better translation than "scratched". (It actually is.)
  “The thing is that Mariah’s program includes an element where she lays her leg back and stretches it. This is how it happened that she touched Lim’s leg with her blade. Of course it was not deliberately!” Arutyunyan told R-Sport after the scandal involving his skaters. “There has never been any confrontation between them at training sessions. And by the way, look at Mariah! Do you think this girl could offend anybody? I can’t even imagine who decided to write such kind of things about her.”
  More here: Talk:Mariah Bell#Edit warring by Crabin. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Crabin: Bell not apologizing after collision is a direct quote from source <27>, cited right after the addition. TMZ magazine : https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/21/u-s-figure-skater-accused-of-slashing-korean-rival/ "Mariah Bell didn’t apologize to Lim Eun-soo after the incident and instead continued to rehearse for her routine."

as for Moscow Connection's "touch" if you play the video at 40 second you can clearly see the "touch" caused a serious gash on her leg https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1005188936

Also if the reason that she merely touched her with a blade is because of the coach's quote, he didn't even come by to check on Eunsoo when she was being treated by the medical team. His wife is helping her get patched up while he is nowhere to be seen. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/eunsoo-lim-receives-medical-attention-after-injuring-leg-1.5067022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabin (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• 1. Are you from South Korea? The video won't play for me, it just says: "We only offer this video to viewers located within Korea (해당 영상은 해외에서 재생이 불가합니다)".
  2. There were another sources exactly after, Independent and CBC, but I'll look. And I still don't think it's relevant. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Note to administrators: I would also like to draw attention to this edit: [20]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 26 March, 13:00

Update. The user won't stop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:పగలబడి నవ్వుట reported by User:Gazoth (Result: indef-blocked)

Page: HAL Tejas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/889443765

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/889444801
2. Special:Diff/889445917
3. Special:Diff/889620580
4. Special:Diff/889622510
5. Special:Diff/889623706

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/889446957 and Special:Diff/889447677

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/889445239

Comments:
The reverts are just outside the 24-hour window, but the editor has declared that they will not respect consensus and continue to edit war. —Gazoth (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:RuthSmith95 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2018–19 Nashville Predators season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RuthSmith95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 09:23, 26 March 2019‎ (I am already at 3 reverts so I am showing the last good version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:38, 26 March 2019
2. 10:21, 26 March 2019
3. 10:28, 26 March 2019
4. 11:03, 26 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:23, 26 March 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

The user is also treating 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, Stanley Cup playoffs, and File:NFL100th.png as a battleground. This might not be the place, but it appears that this user is the same person as Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs) (simply looking at the user page it is evident that it is the same person since both user pages have the same content) and the disruptive pattern is evident in both users' edits. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: The reported user has moved its old user to a new namespace by itself, which I believe is forbidden. In addition, reversions are continuing at File:NFL100th.png when the wrong and obsolete logo is reinstated. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There is certainly something strange going on with user and talk pages. The original talk page now seems to be User talk:Ruth Smith 95, and there is a redirect at User talk:Ruth Smith 101. That certainly complicates the User: and User talk: namespaces, having pages around without corresponding accounts. It also happens to lose the edit history for the user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the editing history of the original user and the reported user, I assume that he/she just is not competent enough to be here. RuthSmith95 was created several hours after Ruth Smith 101's last edit, which indicates that user might have wanted to have a clean start, but there are bigger problems than that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have managed to get this user to discontinue their behavior after they had confronted me on my talk page in regards to their edits being reverted. I gave them a simple explanation based on what I believe (not sure if my reason meets the standards of those that participate on the WikiProject:Ice Hockey page explanation would be an actual reason that a participant on the WikiProject:Ice Hockey page would provide an inexperienced user with). But, it seems that my explanation appears to have made the user "understand" (for now) the reason for their edits being reverted. Yowashi (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• The user pages are now again at User:Ruth Smith 101 and User talk:Ruth Smith 101. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and also at User:RuthSmith95 and User talk:RuthSmith95! --T*U (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. This user has two accounts, though they appear to have stopped using Ruth Smith 101 (talk · contribs) as of March 9. The moves of their user page are confusing. It sems that Anthony has straightened those out. It would be helpful if RuthSmith95 (talk · contribs) would communicate more on talk pages. And stop edit warring, of course. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Otaku 48 reported by User:Debiit (Result: Indef blocked)

Page: Manami Oku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Otaku 48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:

The user shows an obsessive fanaticism towars the person and keeps adding irrelevant/unreferenced information, even after warning. The article is about a living person, but the user adds information and facts about the band which the artist used to be part of. Not to mention that adding "half asian, half white" is not only totally inappropriate for Wiki standars, but for the person himself. Debiit (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• User had not been specifically warned about 3RR. I just warned them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've moved to indef them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic, User:Velella, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Geoffreyrabbit reported by User:Ɱ (Result: No violation)

Page: Fish as food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Epipelagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Velella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geoffreyrabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Fish as food#Lead image

Comments:
I recommend protecting Fish as food and perhaps even a topic ban for these users displaying WP:OWN over the lede image. There has been a complete breakdown in communication between editors here, with completely no regard for each other, and almost a month full of edit warring here by multiple users, spanning from December 30 to March 26. Only Anna Frodesiak had actually used the talk page, a little late, on January 4. None of these other users had even commented until I attempted to stop the edit warring and resume discussions on talk. ɱ (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's always fascinating when an otherwise rational editor says they attempted to "stop the edit warring" by... wait for it... edit warring themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  I have protected the page for 24 hours to stop the warring. The discussion at the talk page looks promising and I suggest that all parties (including Ɱ, who has dived in head first and joined the war themselves) cool down and discuss the thing rationally there and come to a consensus. Other than that I don't see any need for action. Most of the edits concerned were 1-2 months ago.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Chill, I merely wanted to return to what I had found was consensus and have everyone take it to talk, and warned of escalation if you all continued edit warring. Epipelagic especially shows signs of OWNership of this article, having even been reverting users over the lead image in 2014, and hadn't even discussed this on the talk page once before I really had to go in and stop nearly a month of edit warring. ɱ (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• What rubbish you talk ɱ. Go and find something useful to do. – Epipelagic (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• No violation. @Ɱ: This report is an abuse of process at a minimum. If I see you do it again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you see how many diffs there are there? There was no discussion going on for months, it was pretty blatant edit warring. Don't attack me for utilizing the proper channels to stop this, and don't threaten me. ɱ (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And clearly even though you have a nice little AN3 template, you're incorrect, Amakuru already found a violation and thus protected the page. Stop attacking me, take Epipelagic's advice and go find something useful to do. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, do tell, how reporting clear back-and-forth between users' preferred images, with little-to-no use of the talk page even is "an abuse of process"?!? That's literally textbook edit warring. ɱ (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Here. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So, between 1 February and 24 March, there had been 1 (ONE) revert by 1 of the four named editors. Then, Ɱ starts edit warring, reverting to a version of 5 January which had stood for less than 2 hours, without at that time even having joined the talk page discussion. When reverted, they again revert to their preferred version, with edit summary "Longstanding consensus version. Now that this is in a talk page discussion, please let's discuss. Any further actions and I will pursue blocks and page protection for edit warring." The version they reverted to was not a longstanding consensus version though, this is the version from before the edit war of January. They made similar claims at the talk page discussion: "Stop edit warring and do not keep adding back your favored image over the longstanding image, ignoring my and others' warnings." They are berating Anna Frodesiak on their talk page, clearly without knowing or understanding anything of the history and of what steps Anna took. I would support a final warning for Ɱ that any similar reports in the future will lead to a block. This is a frivolous, uninformed, time-wasting exercise where their own actions are the main cause of the current problems. Fram (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to see 32 different edits back and forth as not edit warring, okay. But I took this here to stop it literally right after my final warning to stop edit warring. The image they were pushing was not the longstanding consensus version (neither was the one I added back, but it appears none have that much consensus behind it). Literally, once again, AN fails me and perpetuates the system of blaming those who report others. Really freaking sad. ɱ (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No one has said that there wasn't an edit war in January. However, that edit war had long since ended, until you restarted it with false claims about consensus versions or longstanding images (which you now at least admit was a false claim). 3 of the 4 people you dragged to ANEW had not edited the page the last two months, and you had not made any effort to discuss this before you decided to revert to a disputed version. Basically, you first restarted a long-finished edit war, you did this with incorrect claims of consensus and the like, you then started warning people for behaviour you continued just as much, and then you dragged people here even when they had done nothing remotely wrong in the last 2 months; and then you are surprised that people are not applauding your action? If you don't want to receive blame for your report here, then think about what you report here and who you drag here. The first line at the top of this page is "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.": you reported three inactive edit warriors who had no recent violations of any rule, and one editor who reverted socks and one user who was basically for that sock, you. What you could have done was ask for page protection (though this was hardly needed before you stepped in), and/or preferably join the discussion on the talk page. Everything else was just stirring up trouble, causing a lot of wasted time, an unnecessary protection of the page, and unhappy editors. Fram (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:91.169.1.118 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: Semi)

Page: Bimetric gravity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.169.1.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk-page situation started in a bad place, with an IP editor promising to go around the community consensus by reinstating material that had been found unsuitable. I replied, trying to strike a firm note without being confrontational, though my impatience doubtless showed through. The anon IP came back with a demand, which I tried in good faith to meet, despite being pretty confident it would be pointless. And indeed, despite my evaluating a whole heap of spurious sources, they claimed in an edit summary that I don't want to discuss on Talk page. Believe me, I'd rather be having a cordial chat over there than making a report here, but I don't think any further conversation there would be cordial at all. And since I was warned for edit warring by a diligent page patroller, I recognize that my exasperation might well lead me over the line on this one, so I'd rather take it to a noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and over on Talk:Bimetric gravity, the anon IP has accused me of vandalizing the page out of a personal vendetta. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
An anonymous IP-jumping editor has been trying to own the page bimetric gravity, so much so that an AfD had to decide whether the article could be salvaged from their promotionalism. I requested community input from WikiProject Physics, but the anon IP kept pushing their edits before a discussion could even begin. They edited, with a misleading edit summary; I reverted; they went on to revert again. That is, in a nutshell, what WP:BRD says not to do.

Other IPs that I strongly suspect resolve to the same individual: 145.242.20.220, 80.214.73.185, 80.215.96.179, 80.215.97.25 and 80.215.224.16. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And also 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikiedro reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: No violation)

Page: White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Series of 2 edits:
   1. 13:47, 27 March 2019 review for reference in spanish about mexican numbers, see: https://www.conapred.org.mx/documentos_cedoc/21_Marzo_DiaIntElimDiscRacial_INACCSS.pdf (page 3) & https://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RG-Accss-002.pdf (page 43) current [rollback: 2 edits] [rollback] [vandalism]
   2. 13:42, 27 March 2019 review for reference in spanish: correction of percentages, see: https://www.conapred.org.mx/documentos_cedoc/21_Marzo_DiaIntElimDiscRacial_INACCSS.pdf (page 3) & https://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RG-Accss-002.pdf (page 43)
2. 23:21, 28 February 2019 agreed here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografía_de_México#Composición_genética_y_fenotípica_de_México; and here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediación_informal/Solicitudes/Archivo_2018_10 Tag: Undo
3. 19:57, 28 February 2019 Undid revision 885107129 by Pob3qu3 (talk): you edition is not the average; you only show references with high percentages, ignoring the low percentages (correct references) Tag: Undo
4. 21:03, 25 February 2019 Undid revision 884762588 by Pob3qu3 (talk): not, agreed here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografía_de_México#Composición_genética_y_fenotípica_de_México; and here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediación_informal/Solicitudes/Archivo_2018_10 Tag: Undo
5. 20:39, 23 February 2019 Undid revision 884740469 by Dhtwiki (talk): the references are debated in es.wiki Tag: Undo
6. 13:26, 23 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: added: (Martínez-Cortés et al, 2017), (Ruiz-Linares et al, 2014) & (Noris-Santana et al, 2012), dna ancestry studies about mexican genetics. White representation: 25,4%-37%-39%
7. 15:55, 21 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: quito en obras
8. 15:51, 21 February 2019 Undid revision 883978055 by Pob3qu3 (talk): usted no es neutral, está esquivando referencias válidas, mostrando sólo una parte de la verdad Tag: Undo
9. 14:45, 19 February 2019 las referencias que añadí las hemos probado y están consensuadas en la Wikipedia en español Tag: Undo
10. 12:43, 18 February 2019 repongo algunas referencias; Pob3qu3, al menos tenga la dignidad de colocar todo el rango de referencias, de lo contrario me da la impresión que usted está siendo proselitista; a propósito, dejaré los carteles puestos, porque estoy preparando una traducción para todos los artículos en cuestión en la enciclopedia inglesa, a fin de que no se den estas situaciones de redacción engañosa
11. Series of 6 edits (entire diff)
    1. 15:44, 17 February 2019
    2. 15:43, 17 February 2019
    3. 15:41, 17 February 2019
    4. 15:40, 17 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: México no es mayoritariamente blanco, qué mentira más grande es esa
    5. 15:34, 17 February 2019 →‎Mexico: añado esta plantilla porque no están señaladas todas las referencias habidas para el caso mexicano, y además, la redacción es proselitista a mostrar a México como un país blanco, cuando no lo es
    6. 15:30, 17 February 2019 →‎Genetic research: imagen incorrespondida
12. 11:37, 16 December 2018 Undid revision 873942387 by Pob3qu3 (talk): not delete cientifics references Tag: Undo
13. Series of edits:
    1. 13:10, 15 December 2018 →‎Genetic research: references
    2. 13:03, 15 December 2018 →‎Genetic research: references

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32], removed by user here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:White_Latin_Americans#Mexico_discussion
• Talk:White_Latin_Americans#Clarifications_and_doubts_about_the_white_population_of_Mexico

Comments:
This user was blocked by Materialscientist on 02:36, 8 March 2019 for 24 hours for edit warring.

This user appears to be primarily edit warring with Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The user was indeed blocked on March 8, so all diffs in this report before that are irrelevant, you can't get double jeopardy blocks! Since then, the user has not reverted at all. On the other hand, EvergreenFir has reverted quite a few times, though not enough to get a WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I'm surprised you did not take the time to review the page's history or the talk page (unless I'm somehow missing something obvious). Clearly the edits today are aver the block 3 weeks ago. And they are clearly on the same material as before. This user, along with Pob3qu3, have been edit warring back and forth other the percent of Mexican whites. This nonsense spilled into logged out edits which resulted in page protection and has been happening with various accounts on Mexicans. That you'd "not" suggest but mention BOOMERANG seems ridiculous for a page plagued by disruptive editors. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend a good Spanish speaker communicates with them; when somebody did previously, they were responsive. I don't think they were being deliberately disruptive. The disruptive edits from IPs, which have spilled over to discussion on the talk page, have been resolved by page protection. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Alrighty. Maybe I can find someone through userboxes who can help. Thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Needed information for White Mexicans in White Latin Americans: Nearly 10 of sources used to support the text of Mexico are unavaible or privated, but half of these sources where used to support directly the percents of white people in Mexico: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. The Genetic and some Historical paragraphs contain better references, although there are sources that not especifies in what part of page shows the specifically information that provides the paraghraph. Only with the first data its very disturb imaginate what is the real purpose for the editor pob3qu3. There are other fails that Wikiedro and me mentioned in the Talk Page. Greetings. --186.151.62.200 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Aclaración: La IP que hizo el anterior mensaje es de Guatemala, mientras que yo soy de Chile. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Respuesta de Wikiedro

Estimados. Quiero decirles que soy un usuario de Wikipedia en español, especializado en demografía y etnicidad, con 27.000 ediciones, licencias de reversor y autoverificado, y 2 artículos buenos. Lo primero que quiero decirles es que es impresionante la diferencia que existe entre la edición en inglés y la edición en español, sobre la etnografía mexicana. En la wikipedia en español hay citados muchos más estudios y referencias en artículos científicos sobre el caso mexicano, que en la wiki inglesa.

En cambio, en la edición en inglés, yo y al menos dos editores anónimos (de Guatemala y de Chile), es decir tres usuarios diferentes, notamos cierto sesgo en la selección de referencias, y en algunos casos la entrega de cifras adulteradas (ver), que hemos pretendido corregir, pero hemos recibido a cambio la negativa editorial, sin siquiera comprobar esas ediciones, y que en mi caso, muy constructivamente he tratado de añadir, a pesar de mis limitaciones idiomáticas. Yo lo que distingo en la wiki inglesa es cierto sesgo a reproducir referencias con altos porcentajes europeos en estudios genéticos mexicanos; sin embargo, los estudios con bajos porcentajes de aportes europeos hechos en México son sistemáticamente revertidos o ignorados, cuando son tan válidos como los primeros, y de hecho, están validados y disponibles en la wikipedia en español. Véase por ejemplo este artículo: Demografía de México en Wikipedia en Español, trabajado entre mí, Açipni-Lovrij y Pob3qu3.

PD: Debo decir también, que en Wikipedia en español, Pob3qu3 perdió una mediación-resolución que se puso al respecto de sus ediciones, que han sido cuestionadas por sus aparentes proselitismos eurocentristas, ver: mediación establecida, zona de discusión, resolución. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedro (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:216.211.107.59 reported by User:creffett (Result: )

Page: Make America Great Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.211.107.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_America_Great_Again&type=revision&diff=889810594&oldid=889784462

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_America_Great_Again&diff=889810468&oldid=889810348
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_America_Great_Again&diff=889810594&oldid=889810512

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.211.107.59&diff=889810552&oldid=889810377

Comments:
I concede that my talk actions were more "paste a boilerplate warning" than "discuss the issue," but the user in question vandalized the article and has twice reverted my reverts of said vandalization. This seems like a straightforward issue to me. creffett (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: No violation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick Thorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Diff of talk page discussion: [46]

Comments:
I know that 3RR hasn't technically been violated, but it's clear that the user isn't going to stop. Of course, I could have restored the original version first and waited for the edit to get reverted, but I don't see much point in doing that.

As to the talk page, one user (user:Nunh-huh) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and user:1990'sguy) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected. Furthermore, it is a clear grammatical error, which is not too hard to spot, and which I have explained twice in my edit summaries. I have then implemented this change and added the word "thus". However, Nick Thorne kept reverting the edit without starting a discussion on the talk page, and when the discussion was eventually started, after 3 reverts, it just told me to justify the change ([47]) and insisted there was no error.

I believe these reverts were definitely not made in good faith, as my version is also acceptable (in that it doesn't have any grammatical errors in them), and a good-faith editor would never start edit-warring over an acceptable edit, especially such an insignificant one. However, even if they were, they were still not constructive and persistent, which is why I believe Nick Thorne should get a temporary ban.^Ol^Ja 12:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Firstly, I have not violated 3RR and I clearly indicated on the talk page that I would not. The OP posted this report while I was writing my last response on the talk page here. My reverst have had edit summaries explaining why they were being made and pointing the OP to the talk page. Their responses have been cambatitive. The diff for the "Attempt to resolve dispute" was to a discussion I was not even involed in. The reporting editor's recent history on the page in question shows a pattern of battleground behaviour and disputes with multiple editors. If anyone is involved in an edit war it is them. This is all I have to say on this subject. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• No violation. I note the comment "one user (user:Nunh-huh) has proposed the change, and two more users (me and user:1990'sguy) have agreed to make the change, while no one has objected". Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false. At least four other editors apart from Nick Thorne (User:Roxy the dog, User:Rhododendrites, User:Doug Weller and User:Dave souza) have objected to all or some of your various changes. I would strongly suggest that you go back to that talk page and try to form a consensus for your edits, rather than attempting to edit-war them into the article without one. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Thanks for your explanation. However, you are misunderstanding the gist of this report: yes, I have failed to reach a concensus on my original proposal, which did not even concern the clause I am addressing in this report, instead concerning the following clause. For this reason, I have not tried to implement the change I have proposed. However, concerning the clause 'which rejects...' and the change to 'and rejects...', there was only one small discussion, which involved only three editors, me, 1990'sguy, and Nunh-huh. The following comment in that discussion addressed my original proposal, not the proposal addressed in this report. Please reconsider your conclusion.^Ol^Ja 13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More falsities, this is not what the change was at all. this revert was for a change that was not trivial at all, it changed the meaning of the whole sentence with some bogus imaginary grammar error as the justification. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting Nunh-huh, "Change "which" to "and", and problem solved". Not sure if you are trolling or not.^Ol^Ja 13:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hold on there with this edit the OP has changed his original post after I had replied to it, in direct contradiction of the norms of behaviour on Wikipedia. This is not acceptable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• I was not aware that this is not allowed, and if give me a link to a Wikipedia policy which says that such behaviour is indeed prohibited, I will restore the original proposal. The edit was done with the sole intent of clarfication.^Ol^Ja 13:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:REDACT - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

All this talk from James about "trolling" and grammar no better than a ten-year old is unhelpful. User:Rhododendrites only s few minutes ago suggested to James that he try to get consensus and not edit war. Good advice. There really is no need to continue this conversation here in a report which should never have been made. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, looks like the OP is at 4RR now. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't a revert. Instead, I copied exactly what one of the reverters of my edit (Rhododendtrites) proposed on the talk page. See WP:BRD#Use cases.^Ol^Ja 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: FYI, that would still be a revert. You should probably reread the comment by Rhododendrites that you are relying on: "James, an article like this can indeed be a slog to make even minor edits sometimes, and I dare say you'd have a much better time of it if you did take pains to find consensus on the talk page first and refrained from edit warring." Seems like good advice. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Actually no, that wouldn't be a revert at all, but I appreciate your desire to help.^Ol^Ja 02:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: WP:REVERT Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Which is exactly what I haven't done, and instead used Rhododendrites's version. I won't reply to any of your further comments as this has already turned into a WP:WALL OF TEXT. If you want to continue this discussion, leave me a message on my talk page.^Ol^Ja 02:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Objective3000 reported by User:TheMemeMonarch (Result:Objective3000 warned)

Page: Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Objective3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889785047&oldid=889740342 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889785047&oldid=889740342
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889736977&oldid=889734016
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889727252&oldid=889726686
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889723878&oldid=889723549
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889723220&oldid=889723156
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory%29&type=revision&diff=889723100&oldid=889722641

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000&diff=prev&oldid=889788201 [diff]

Comments: I tried to make a compromise between the groups, but objective3000 accused me of vandalism and reverted the compromise. There were also more reverts, but I linked 6 of them, which is already double 3. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this be posted on the WP:Spanish Inquisition Noticeboard? O3000 (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well, technically, Objective3000 has crossed 3RR, edit warring on an editorial issue. So the first step out here Objective3000 is to step back and stop reverting – till you file an SPI, which should be your immediate next step. What I see are a lot of ducks operating on the page to edit war with you and other editors. However, you need to be sure about that. So stop reverting (the world is not going to end), file an SPI with checkuser requested, and wait for the results; and once it is proven, I'll block all the editors who have been reverting the article from your preferred state. However, till then, you're on thin ice and would be blocked by me if you undertake one more revert. Lourdes 00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But, I was just one of five editors reverting these edits today, including an admin (Muboshgu, NorthBySouthBaranof , Mikemyers345, MrClog, and me). I considered an SPI request for (Isothermic, 143.179.74.26 , TheMemeMonarch , 35.21.6.79, 2605:6000:1b0a:8199:594f:d28d:3d6b:6608 , 2607:fcc8:9dc4:fe00:e4c0:adab:6431:8740 , 99.13.89.124). But, CU work is difficult, particularly with IPs using avoidance techniques. I asked for and got page protection, which is when the non-IPs with little history showed up. Besides, SPI may have failed as some may have been different folk pointed here. There has been a large uptick in vandalism on multiple articles today. As this is a highly watched article, we all did our best to remove the contentious edits. Thank you for full protection – it’s been a long day. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If it was the complete removal of the word "false" by others, I would say O3K was in the right to break 3RR for obvious vandalism. But the difference between a "false" and "unproven" conspiracy theory is a content issue (they are reasonably close terms and neither erodes the fact that most consider the Spygate a conspiracy theory), and definitely subject to edit warring concerns, even if there's strong suspicion that User:Isothermic is a sock. No sign of talk page discussion by anyone involved. But that said, if the SPI check is positive, TROUT on O3K who should know better. --Masem (t) 01:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Objective3000, as mentioned rightly by Masem, you should have known better. File an SPI; and stop reverting. The page is on my watch list; any editor who breaks 3RR from hereon for editorial content issues will first be warned and then be blocked. Please be careful. Thanks, Lourdes 03:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • MrClog opened an SPI this morning on one of the users and one of the IPs which was quickly closed as probable but moot as the user has been blocked. I've opened a more extensive SPI. [48]. O3000 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:146.90.125.54 reported by User:Quail Armor (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rootless cosmopolitan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

146.90.125.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889944840 by Quail Armor (talk)"
2. 00:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889943799 by Chris troutman (talk)"
3. 23:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 889940699 by Chris troutman (talk) rv vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Fixing basic grammar errors like missing definite articles is not any kind of vandalism. Nor is removing unreliable sources like blogs. So why are people undoing these common sense helpful changes? Who knows. They certainly haven't attempted to explain themselves. 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

and note that the reporting editor's account is less than 24 hours old. 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

and note the conspicuously empty "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page".146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• IP CU-blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Merphee reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Stale)

Page: The Australian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merphee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Original four reverts from previous report.

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. Revert made shortly after block expired.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:
Merphee has broken 3RR twice before, once warned and once blocked. About 24 hours after the last incident, the duration of the block, they have begun to make the same revert edits again. Notifying Swarm, the admin who resolved the previous report. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That is complete rubbish Onetwothreeip and I served my block. And I had no intention of reverting you again today. Apology to administrators for posting this here as well as under the last notice. You and PeterTheFourth were both Wikipedia:Tag teaming and edit warring. Multiple editors have agreed and have made comments. It aint just me who's observed it. It's there in front of anyone who cares to read the thread. Here are just a few other editor's assessment of their daylight tag teaming, bad faith editing and edit warring. This one [56] and another editor's same conclusion here for the edit warring and bad faith and provocative edit made during the discussion [57] and here [58] and [59] and then here from yet another editor, saying how they thought it odd that the notifier PeterTheFourth, was also clearly edit warring and each of us should have received a block [60]. I mean it was absolute classic tag teaming no doubt about it. Twice. Two weeks apart. I've served my block, which was fair enough because I breached the 3RR rule. But why are these two tag teamers getting away with their tag teaming to circumvent the normal process of consensus by coordinating their actions to sidestep the 3RR policy? And if no sanctions are applied to these editor's edit warring, further disruption and a compromised article will continue on Talk:The Australian as they both have now jammed in a bold bad faith edit right in the middle of the 'consensus building process'. Not cool. I have made this edit today [61] over at Talk:The Australian to help us move toward a long term resolution to this ongoing debate and one that another editor has pointed out has been going on for 10 years.  ::However before a resolution can be reached can sanctions be applied to Onetwothreeip and PeterTheFourth @Swarm:? Merphee (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And here is Onetwothreeip edit warring once again @Swarm:. Thankfully another civil minded editor has just put a stop to it and restored the article to the version it was before Onetwothreeip/PeterTheFourth jammed in their contentious preferred version in bad faith. [62]. I was certainly NOT going to revert Onetwothreeip so I'm glad they did. Onetwothreeip also refuses to discuss the possibility of using dispute resolution which I've suggested multiple times or tell other editors if they are in support of a very reasonable proposal made by another editor earlier this month. Here is my latest attempt to try and resolve this long term dispute over at the talk page [63]. Merphee (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been following this, reverted the reporting user, and generally endorse the equally persistent reported user (except the 3RR, for which they have already been blocked). The reporting user shows more interest in 'discussion', which continues well after the matter is resolved and consensus is found. I regard the contributions I am aware of as edit warring, vindictive and drama-mongering. I am not aware of significant improvements they may have made to other content, I am merely speaking about the contributions I am aware of, which seem to avoid legitimate content and favour solutions that keep the discussion going. cygnis insignis 11:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that assessment of Merphee but more importantly they clearly believe that a sanction for breaking 3RR is merely the price one pays for making repeated reverts when they feel it necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your tag-teaming buddy has a mouth on him Cygnis insignis Let me be brief - consulting a thesaurus and switching every second word to a synonym makes you look stupid, not smart. I've tried to be nice about this habit of yours - just stop it. PeterTheFourth 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC) twenty minutes ago cygnis insignis 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Stale Looking at the most recent contributions, Merphee has stopped reverting and is discussing on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: and @Ritchie333: the edit war is continuing at The Australian. Today Pinkbeast has reverted 3 times within a half hour here [64], here [65] and here [66]. I assume if I had not withdrawn from trying to restore the status quo at least while we try and discuss the edit they are trying to jam in against consensus, Pinkbeast would not have stopped reverting. The tag team comprising Pinkbeast, PeterTheFourth and Onetwothreeip refuse to engage in constructive consensus building or answer me when I've politely asked if they would like to use dispute resolution. They are forming an active and obvious tag team to circumvent. There is certainly no consensus for a single label of The Australian. This edit is therefore made in bad faith. Multiple editors have opposed any single descriptor/label and this is obvious to any editor who reads the month long discussion on the talk page. There has also been some extremely nasty and insulting comments made by PeterTheFourth toward another editor which is beyond uncivil. This comment [67] is entirely unacceptable and I'm asking an administrator at least ask PeterTheFourth to stop this type of abuse toward a good faith editor. Much bullying and intimidation typical of a tag team actively operating at this article page. Merphee (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Merphee: You won't tell us what your objections are to the content, you just keep claiming there isn't consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

warming

The games continue. This article was more or less stable for years, and now it's a hotbed of editors trying to stay one jump ahead of 3RR. I'd like to see someone take a look at a random recent week, count up the reverts various editors are making, and chuck them out of the game. For some reason, they don't want to talk about journalism and wikiprocess, they want the article to say one set of two words over another set, and the continuing nonsense is disruptive. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Australian is now fully protected three days by User:Jayjg. It would be surprising if nobody can find a large set of opinions from middle-of-the-road sources as to the political position of The Australian. If people object to summarizing its views as 'right wing' then maybe a more detailed and nuanced description is possible. Charges of tag-teaming (as above) aren't very believable when the topic by its nature is likely to attract strong opinions from numerous editors. The topic seems open to the collection of a broader set of sources and to more effort at summarizing them carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Aviartm reported by User:2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (Result: No violation )

Page: Colorado Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aviartm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Democratic_Party&oldid=889964056

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Democratic_Party&oldid=889964056
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorado_Democratic_Party

Comments:

The California Republican Party article was vandalized in a way so that the Ideology section included "Nazism". This is well documented on that article's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Republican_Party As a result, it appeared important to checked the references/citations of other state level Republican and Democratic Party articles. The Ideology section on the California Republican Party talk section was discussed at length and it appears the ideology of the California Republican Party is something that isn't really published or citable. So why include the section on Wikipedia? It appears many are without citation and I began removing the Ideology section on a handful of state level articles altogether to avoid future issue. I often start a talk section on the article and link to the California Republican Party talk section for reference, as I had done so with the Colorado Democratic Party. For some reason, two users have reverted my edits without contributing to the discussion. I started a talk section on Aviartm talk page and they suggested I stick to the article's talk page for discussion. I pointed out I had already started one and let them know I'm reporting them. The ideology section of these article's is completely unfounded. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Aviartm has only made one edit to this article ever. That's not edit warring. Notifying Aviartm since the IP did not. Meters (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Meters I was notified of the page when the user made this inquiry. And thanks for your position on the matter. If you go to my Talk Page where the user made a section, you will see his concerns... Aviartm (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Meters, did you look into the Colorado Democratic Party talk page and the California Republican Party talk page? I did let Aviartm know about the report. And I did start a discussion on that article page. I reported it here to avoid future edit wars as I had already started a discussion on the Ideology section after the edit was reverted once and Aviartm ignored participating in it before reverting my edit. Aviartm seemed annoyed that I brought the discussion to their user page but since Aviartm ignored the discussion on the article, I saw no other option. Aviartm further alleges that I need to provide a citation that discredits the ideologies listed on the article of the Colorado Democratic Party. My point is that the responsibility of the citation is the burden of the person making the allegation that those are their ideologies. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I looked at it. I think you are correct, but it's irrelevant to this report. This is a content dispute. Right or wrong, one edit by Aviartm cannot be edit warring. This should never have been brought to 3RR. We do not preemptively open 3RR reports to prevent possible future edit wars. I suggest that you retract this report and continue the talk page discussion. Wait of other editors to comment. Meters (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

it's gone to edit war status at this point. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as the OP? Meters (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:73.239.192.63 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Warned)

Page: Debora Juarez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.239.192.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69] & [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] (from IP to me before their 4th revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
IP editor is repeatedly inserting material that seems non-notable and poorly sourced onto a BLP. After the first time I reverted their edits and asked them to use the talk page, they responded on my talk page like this [76], and they have repeatedly accused me of acting in bad faith [77] [78]. They also filed a report on the NPOV NB [79], before contributing this one comment to the talk page [80]. What should I do? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert has filed this complaint in retaliation for one that I filed earlier. The user has been systematically scrubbing all criticism from the pages of Seattle City Council members. There is criticism of his behavior (from user Jwfowble) on the talk page for Debora Juarez, which he dismissed. User is a repeat offender of edit warring, reverting every legitimately sourced criticism (e.g., from local radio/TV outlets). I used a bad word when I got mad. I do apologize for that. But I do not apologize for adding legitimate content to Wikipedia only to have it removed repeatedly for no good reason. Criticizing politicians is part of our democracy, and the removal of such criticism makes me wonder if the user has a conflict of interest.73.239.192.63 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Warned I have reverted the possible BLP violation in the current version and left a note on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:4TheWynne reported by User:MetalDylan (Result: Page protected )

Page: Machine Head (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 4TheWynne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]
5. [86]

Page protected Full-protected for three days. Please open a discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion opened on the talk page as per request, [87]. I have provided 3 viable solutions which I think solve the issue surrounding repeated editing. The fact is that listing band members currently involved with the band (in any capacity) should not be listed as former members. MetalDylan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: Blocked)

Page: White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

this one is off by a couple of hours but would make for 5 reverts

1. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've given no warnings because is an issue I just got to but the editor has previously been blocked for edit warring [94] and has previously been warned about it [95] (me and other 2 regular editors have had a months-long issue with this editor as shown in the article's edit history [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:

Theres rather strong evidence of this editor abusing multiple registered accounts, IP accounts and also using proxies to make it seem as if more people supported his points (I filled a SPI on this editor last month [98]), compare this two edits for example: [99] & [100]. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Respuesta de Wikiedro

Pido disculpas por el caso, me faltó una hora para hacer la reversión, y el error se debió a que suelo confundir la hora de mi país, Chile, que uso cotidianamente, con la hora UTM, que es la hora que tengo por defecto en esta Wiki (soy nativo de la Wiki en español). Prometo no volver a caer en el error de las tres reversiones. Espero sean atendidas mis disculpas.

PD: Yo no hago ediciones en anónimo, ni con otras cuentas. Soy muy respetuoso y franco en eso. El usuario Pob3qu3 me confunde con una IP de Guatemala, que incluso en reportes de verificación aquí en Wikipedia en inglés han dado resultados negativos, lo que es evidente, porque somos dos personas distintas. Saludos. Wikiedro (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Running through google translate: I apologize for the case, I missed an hour to make the reversal, and the error was due to the fact that I usually confuse the time of my country, Chile, which I use every day, with the UTM time, which is the time that I have by default in This Wiki (I am a native of the Wiki in Spanish). I promise not to fall back into the error of the three reversals. I hope my apologies are answered.

PS: I do not make editions in anonymous, or with other accounts. I am very respectful and frank in that. The user Pob3qu3 confuses me with an IP of Guatemala, that even in verification reports here in English Wikipedia have given negative results, which is evident, because we are two different people. Greetings. (google translate from --valereee (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

I would block for five days, since this is a repeat violation. Don't see any merit in the sock charges. Wikiedro might avoid sanctions if they will agree to permanently withdraw from this topic area. They have 27,000 edits on the Spanish Wikipedia and it's too bad they are off to a bad start here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This Topic is a waste of time, because we’re not the same person, I’m from Guatemala, Wikiedro is Chilean. Actually the problem here is that both Wikiedro and me mentioned several problems in the page White Latin Americans (specifically in Mexico) in the Talk Page with the title “The Fake of White People in Mexico” but the users DHTWiki and Evergreenfer were not capable to respond our signalments and only acused us to make violations or contents, Wikiedro putted another figure of white Mexicans with a reference or link, but DHTWiki started an edit war acused against Wikiedro (in the talk page, I mentioned the problem that in a reference the suvey consisted of 500 persons, that’s not representative because it’s lower than 1000 persons, Evergreenfer only answered “a survey of 1,000 persons could be good if they used a correct method with low margin of error), Pob3qu3 just start to this issue, but he was involved in troubles relationed of this topic in the past not only here (he lost a resolution in Spanish Wikipedia). He was also blocks recently .So the real problem here is obviously not Wikiedro. Thanks and Good Night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.62.200 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC) --186.151.62.200 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikiedro is being reverted by multiple, definitely different editors so he is clearly the problem here. About the resolution "I lost" in the spanish wiki, it concerned the order of some studies and the inclusion of an image, additionally, the rationale to reach said veredict was strange, as it was that "I stopped replying to the discussions created by Wikiedro" (important to note that Wikiedro used to go by the name of Açipni-Lovrij before he requested a name change not long ago [101], with his signature often appearing as A.L.) when as can be seen I was the last editor to reply to each of them [102], [103] (here's my reply in that noticeboard [104]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 5 days. Wikiedro was blocked previously for edit warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whatever would says Pob3qu3, in Spanish Wikipedia this user was signaled for prosiletism and dubious information (with polemical results) and no matter if Wikiedro acused Pob3qu3, the acusations where well-recibied by the Spanish Wikipedian administrators and also approve that. I will traduce the final resolution wrotted by the Spanish Wikipedian Administrator´s Taichi: I will close this case after the tablon´s request, user Pob3qu3 no longer edit anddo not take care in search a middle point, thats mean that theres not disposition for continue this issue. For these reason I give permission to Açipni-Lovrij fo make the necessariest corrections in the article, since the issue is not being ever mediated informally. I make mention to Geom (User) to be aware. Also, Pob3qu3 is warned to not make label defaults anymore, and he will be santioned if he does it again. Whitin the suckpoppet suspicius, the best way is make a cheksuer request. As the judment to what is Pob3que exposed, its clearly that the informal situation its abandoned, for that, my response gived hours ago is the only one to the resolution of this conflict. Also, I remember to the user Pobeque that he hasnt disposition to stand up in this administrative resolution or indicate waht we may do. Under penalty of breake this rule. I close this case. Taichi. 11/11/2018. In Spanish: Respuesta Voy a cerrar este hilo porque luego de esta solicitud en el tablón, el usuario Pob3qu3 no ha vuelto a editar ni se ha interesado en buscar un punto medio, lo que significa que no hay disposición de avanzar en el tema. Por ello doy permiso a Açipni-Lovrij que haga las correcciones necesarias en el artículo, ya que el asunto ni siquiera está siendo mediado informalmente. Hago mención a Geom para que esté enterado. También queda advertido a Pob3qu3 que no puede seguir cometiendo faltas a la etiqueta, por lo que se le sancionará si hay reincidencia. Sobre las sospechas de usuario títere, lo conveniente es solicitar vía checkuser que se despeje esa incógnita. Taichi 〒 00:04 11 nov 2018 (UTC) Como corolario a lo expuesto a Pob3qu3 queda claro que la mediación informal está abandonada, por lo que la respuesta emitida hace unas horas por mi persona es la única referencia de resolución a este conflicto. También reitero que el usuario Pob3que3 no está en posición de pasarse por encima de una resolución administrativa ni de indicar qué hay que hacer, so pena de romper esta norma. Cierro el hilo. Taichi 〒 08:07 11 nov 2018 (UTC) --186.151.62.200 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)

Page: Catholic Church and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Among several other additions, Roscelese added "It therefore holds that homosexuality is inherently a tendency towards sin." in the Church Teaching section here:

1. [106]

The material was disputed, and I tried to adjust the wording on several occasions, including adding additional sources to give greater support to my proposed language. On each occasion, I was reverted by Roscelese who has been unwilling to allow any changes to her original wording. The difs are below.

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]

The third revert was accompanied by the following edit message: "...don't be absurd. this attempt to bury the point beneath strata of apologetics is a waste of everyone's time."

At this point I recognized that there was WP:NOCONSENSUS. In an attempt to gain consensus on a version that could be included, I moved the disputed text to the talk page in accordance with the policy that states "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Roscelese then reverted again:

1. [110]

The latest reversion was accompanied by this edit message: "rv removal of cited material; removal of something you've been gunning to remove for weeks is not a "temporary compromise"." On the talk page she added: "Your attempts to obfuscate this point over the past couple of weeks (months?) are a waste of everyone's time."

Note that I have never tried to remove the material, nor expressed an interest in doing so. I only wished to clarify it. Roscelese has been unwilling to compromise, however, and refuses to allow any edits to her preferred version. I believe it is worth noting that Roscelese has been under ArbCom sanctions since 2015 after an incident on the related Christianity and sexuality article. They include requiring her "to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." Aside from her last reversion, when I created a section on the talk page, she has not discussed any of her reversions. I recognize that I am not a disinterested party, but believe her saying my good faith edits are a waste of everyone's time and that my goal is to obfuscate is a violation of the sanction to not cast aspersions, or personalize disputes.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:

Sadly, Roscelese and I have clashed on a few related articles. I take responsibility for all the times when my actions have not been what they should have been, and apologize to her and to the other editors. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify what your reason is for bringing this here? What I see is several reverts by Roscelese over a period of several weeks. What behavior are you objecting to? This seems like a content dispute that should be handled at article Talk. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The "addition" Slugger links as his first diff here is my restoration of sourced material removed from the article. The bit cited to Linacre previously said that homosexuality is an objective disorder in that it leads to an immoral activity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No violation – Nobody broke 3RR. This might also be reviewed as a case of long-term edit warring, but on a longer time scale it is not obvious which side is behaving better. Consider opening an WP:RFC on the talk page, to itemize the issues in dispute and perhaps reach agreement. If you open an RfC, it can bring in people new to the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Sourcerery reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Warned)

Page: Alt-right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Under 1RR sanctions)
User being reported: Sourcerery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here, from Grayfell, earlier that day, for revert-warring on a separate article. I also raised this WP:1RR violation with them here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:

I reverted the page twice myself; while my reverts were more than 24-hours apart, I wouldn't have done so if I'd noticed that the page was under a WP:1RR restriction at the time. Normally I wouldn't bother with a report when it's a relatively brief edit-war between two editors (literally just four reverts total between us, WP:1RR notwithstanding), but the fact that Sourcerery had been warned against edit warring on a separate article just hours previous and still didn't seem to understand that they'd violated the WP:1RR made me think it was probably necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User is being disingenuous beyond belief, please just look at talk page.Sourcerery (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sourcerery is warned for breaking the WP:1RR at Alt-right on 29 March. No 1RR block is possible since this editor has not yet been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2. I have now done that. Sourcerery has also been getting into edit wars at Communism. They also created a well-formed AfD nomination in their first week. This seems precocious for such a new editor (account created 22 March). EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Bsherr reported by User:Brandmeister (Result: No action)

Pages: The Elephant's Foot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Chernobyl disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bsherr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs: The Elephant's Foot:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]

Diffs: Chernobyl disaster:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments: Despite being informed about opening a relevant talk thread for WP:MERGE per usual practice, the user proceeded to tag the articles without any reason, even after my objection per WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. Attempts asking to refrain from such unhelpful behavior led to nothing, as the user decided to arbitrarily reinstate merge tags even without an edit summary. Brandmeister^talk 22:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MERGE is not a guideline. If it were, every merge discussion would require closing by an administrator, which is obviously not our practice. Brandmeister removed the template. That is not our practice. WP:BRD is for disputed changes, it is not for removing the templates intended to facilitate discussion. Worse still, the templates are placed on three articles—one merge source and two merge targets—but Brandmeister removed the templates from only two of the three. I invited Brandmeister to start a discussion on the article talk page with his opinion on the proposed merge, and thus self-effectuating his demand that the templates link to a discussion on the talk page. He refused, removing the templates again! In an attempt to diffuse the situation, I relented and posted a detailed explanation of the merge proposal after restoring the templates. Ten minutes later, posts here claiming I am edit warring. Over merge templates. When there is a relevant discussion on the talk page. To which he has not even contributed. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Bsherr (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

And I think it rather makes the point that his diff of his "attempt to resolve dispute on the article talk page" is not on the article talk page. Because if it were, by his logic, the merge templates would be justified to remain. --Bsherr (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Each party has reverted three times. So -- User:Bsherr wants the articles to be merged, and User:Brandmeister opposes that step. Is it OK with Brandmeister if Bsherr actually opens up a discussion at Talk:Chernobyl disaster, lists the discussion at WP:Proposed mergers#Merge requests, and then waits to see if consensus is reached to do the merge?

• Does Bsherr insist that he is under no obligation to open up a discussion section or to state his reasons? That seems peculiar. If you have reached an impasse, you should follow WP:DR. The easiest way to do that would seem to be the formal merge process. Why not do it?

• I'm recommending that Bsherr accept that solution. If not, each party should be formally warned for edit warring and we'll wait to see what happens next. Not a good outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I appreciate the carefully mediated proposal. There are some issues, however. First, I already commenced a discussion at Talk:The Elephant's Foot before Brandmeister made the report here (I chose that page because the prior relevant discussion history is located there, not at either of the two merge target pages). Second, even though it has already occurred, my commencing such a discussion should be conditional on Brandmeister's okay. To address your question, it is not inconsistent with any policy or guideline to initially post merge templates only, just like any other cleanup template. Brandmeister is not entitled to claim an absolute authority to remove the templates in that circumstance. No policy or guideline requires proposed merger templates to be accompanied by an entry on the talk page, and it is not unreasonable to wait until there is an indication that the proposed merge is contested. The result of this should be that Brandmeister is warned not to remove these templates until there is consensus that the pages should not be merged, and not to make frivolous reports to AN3. I have no objection to listing the merge formally (though I note that several community discussions have questioned the functionality of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, hence the template message box on that page). --Bsherr (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, yes, that's what I was seeking. I will accept the solution where Bsherr as the proposer opens a discussion at the articles' talkpages (either both articles or one of them). That he refused to do it baffles me. Brandmeister^talk 09:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this complaint now ready to close? I see there is an actual discussion at Talk:The Elephant's Foot#Renewed merge proposal and there is a merge banner at the top of The Elephant's Foot. This ought to satisfy Brandmeister's objection. Unless you find it a shocking idea, somebody could list the discussion at WP:Proposed mergers. Though you are not required to follow that process, continuing to revert the merge templates is not going to win any points for being a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Closing with no action (but with advice) per the above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Both warned)

Page: Hrvatinić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:
The user is constantly edit-warring and refusing to discuss the issues in any meaningful manner at all...as can be seen on his talk page and the edit notes. Should be also noted that before I decided to step in he was edit warring with another user as well. That user also tried to resolve the matter with him but was also dismissed in a very rude manner as well I might say as can be seen here. Now regarding this last issue, he first removed the sourced coat of arms saying it is not referenced (despite the reference actually being linked in the article already anyway), I've restored it and added the reference next to it to which he now continues to remove claiming it is "a forgery" which is ridiculous. The user was involved in an edit-war earlier on Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić as well where he kept removing categories without any rationale or any explanation at all...even dismissing the sources by constantly calling one of the authors "naturschik" or whatever that may mean. Sadly on my part I took the wrong route there and broke the 3RR there as well trying to revert what I saw as just pure vandalism i.e. him reverting for the sake of reverting. I believe I have offered this person more than enough chance to explain the changes and suggested at least twice that we either discuss this in a civilized manner or even better...bring someone neutral to look at it and make a judgement. I feel like there is no other choice but to report this individual. The page should be reverted back to its original state before the user decided to push his POV and the user sanctioned. Shokatz (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to say "it is other way around", but I believe, whether it is customary or not I really don't know, that I can make strong case in my own defense by stating how things are from my perspective. Both of these subsection on my Talk-page are important for scrutiny: this (1) and this (2). I started contributing to Hrvatinić and related Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić article in fall of 2018, in hope to develop both from stub/start to at least C. I engaged in conversation (sometimes edit-summary would be sufficient) and left massages on both articles talk pages when required (the Hrvatinić article Talk page is problematic because failed undo of unwarranted move without discussion by User:Gryffindor, it's trapped on second undo of the double-redirect). The editor, who at one point clearly explained to me how he perceiving edit-war as if it's a "pissing contest", and who now filed this report, appeared only week or so ago, and without adding one punctuation mark in either of these texts, he simply started reverting most of my work in this second article, removing it complete with new additional and very much needed reliable sources, adequately referenced for the change. Most important thing here is that he was reverting article to old version of text based on misinterpretation of source, and worse, to a state in which important bits of text are literally unsupported by reference, and categories unsupported by such text. Additional reliable sources were dismissed and removed with all the edits in one sweep move, with, at that point, only some complaints and accusations in edit-summary. But obvious reason which is revealed later is that he perceived my edits only as a removal of bogus and anachronistic ethnic labeling of editor Shokatz preference (it is medieval subject and person), which led him to put forth accusation of me "having agenda". Another important thing is that his claim how I refused to discuss issues is completely and utterly disingenuous, which both articles' talk pages as well as my own, can testify to the fact. I was more than willing to resolve potential content dispute and, this is of utmost importance, in particularly problematic interpretation or misinterpretation of referenced sources. He never appeared on articles' talk pages, only appeared on my talk page, where dates should be taken into considerations too, with various accusations based on preconceived assumptions, labeling my replies as "gibberish", calling me to "drop the act", and after a week or so of torture, with uppercase threats in edit-summary, after which I was quite tired and disgruntled, so I left him this final massage in attempt to present him with an anguish he was putting me through for 10 long days, and hopefully close whole affair. He's response is - really something - after which(!) he proceeded to file this report. Both articles in question were neglected for 15 years, with miserable statistics, and with the subject that is obviously obscure and uninteresting for the wider community. Editor seem to relished that situation, because there was no other editor(s) to express their view over content and dispute, just like his comment on my request for page-protection which I filed yesterday - I guess he would prefer it unprotected. His very first edit, that can be considered contribution of material, happened yesterday, and it was inclusion of file in Hrvatinić article with rationale based on utter misinterpretation of source text, although editor never pasted a reference(!) they just expressed in edit-summary their interpretation of source from reference on another file, and this is important to note, it is a reference and a source which I added earlier to another file in that article, amazingly, one that editor struggled hard to remove. I removed the file, with clear explanations both in edit-summary and article Talk page, but that's not something he concerns himself with. Issue escalated much earlier, when I tried to do what he's done today here, but being completely inexperienced in these matters (edit-wars and process of resolutions) I made terrible mistake and made Arb-request, which was rightly dismissed, instead coming here. I also realized that one of us clearly breaking 3RR rule, but who is in breach I can't say because I am little bit baffled with a way 3RR guideline is utilized, so that's on admins to say. Yesterday I filed a request for page-protection in proper place to which he responded with a comment like this expressing his displeasure, maybe ? In more than 10 years I was never warned let alone sanctioned - it is reasonable to have some disputes over such long period, especially when having in mind that I am contributing majority of my edits on extremely contentious subjects in extremely contentious forum, which is Balkans. On the other side is the user who is obviously very well versed in sophisticated edit-warring, reverting and POV pushing, which is clear from both his Talk page and his edit-history. He was sanctioned on more than one occasion for such behavior across the years (which also means he didn't learn much in all that time between blocks and other disputes with other editor, except maybe how to wage edit-wars more efficiently and effectively). It is my believe that it's worth indicating that, just like in case of these two articles, all his troubling behavior stem from his deep sense of ethno-national identity (even editor's very username is ethnonym). Every revert, every edit-war he had, and any random edit that appear as non-problematic, is almost exclusively concerned with issue of ethnic labeling of his preference - whether it was pushing ethnic background on notability of some personality here, or naming bird with specific ethic prefix, or contentious issue of Krajina Serb-Croatia relations, or moving entire article based on his edit in which he changed surname of historical personality of one particular ethnicity, Korenić, into ijekavian, Korijenić, just to emphasize that it should be of another specific ethnicity, all the while being completely wrong.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. Each one is risking a block if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. I'm also alerting both parties to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. If you are hoping to make a success of WP:Dispute resolution, try to be more calm. If you find yourself becoming angry when editing about Balkan topics, it would be best for you to find other interests on Wikipedia. In my opinion, some of the above comments are verging on personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:The One I Left reported by User:Gripdamage (Result: Indef)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_One_I_Left#Learn_instead_of_edit-warring
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Allen&type=revision&diff=890032021&oldid=889800104
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Allen&type=revision&diff=889032470&oldid=889016606

I'm making use of the talk page and edit comments and this person is reverting me without comment. Checked their user page to discover they've already been warned about this behavior. Gripdamage (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk I apologize for forgetting to fill out the edit comment section. Going forward I will remember to do so.

That's what you said after you were warned on your talk page what looks like two times already. Gripdamage (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk You are bringing up old edits I believe. The last edit I made was on the 29th towards simple grammer which I should have made a comment on. I'm a new editor, and some of the rules can be confusing but I promise to fix in the future.

No I'm bringing up the warnings placed on your talk page about making edits without edit summaries or discussion on the talk page just this month by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Radiphus/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doniago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimuk2.0 I am the 4th user to bring up your behavior and the 4th one you've reassured that you won't engage in this behavior again. Gripdamage (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops I missed that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BusterD also warned you. So this is the 5th time Gripdamage (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Gripdamage These are old reminders, I haven't responded to those, However I did respond to edit warring yesterday, which was explained to me and haven't done so since. Its part of the learning process it won't happen again. What else would you want from me?

On the 26th of March you had this exchange: "Read edit war. Also, please sign your name after posting a message using four tildes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)" To which you responded "I understand now. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. User:The One I Left" Now here we are 3 days later, on the 29th of March, and you reverted yet another change without comment and without participating in the active discussion on the talk page in direct opposition to ≥you telling Krimuk2.0 that you understood that wasn't allowed. You refer to them as "old" but you've been talked to by 5 users now all in March 2019. None of them are old: they are all this month. Do you think I can't tell? I can see the history on your talk page. I can see your edit history. You've literally been told 5 times this month. I want exactly the same thing those other users wanted: you to actually stop doing it. Telling me the entries from the 3 other users are "old" when they are from this month, and telling me that you were only responded to Krimuk2.0 "yesterday", when the entries in question are clearly from 3/26 while today is 3/29, does not seem factually accurate. I mean it kinda seems like you're stretching the truth even here. What's with that? Gripdamage (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – Blocked as a sock by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: No action)

Page: Avengers: Endgame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Comments:

This is complicated by the user's history of ignoring warnings on his user talk page, and either ignoring talk page discussion or talking it into the ground. (I can provide diffs if required, but they really shouldn't be needed since this is such a clear-cut case of an editor who is already on final warning for edit-warring on pages he feels he "owns" violating 3RR.) Additionally, WP:BRD (since the content was only added a week ago and has now been challenged) now favours keeping the content out, so it should really be Adam trying to open discussion in order to add the content back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to discuss on the talkpage (because while I was filing this report another user separately requested that I open a talk page discussion) has been fruitless, meeting only with an IDHT comment from Adam that responded to an argument that wasn't actually made.[137] This is fairly characteristic behaviour, I've found: see for example this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the third and fourth diffs were the result of a big (and kind of funny) misunderstanding with a third party, user Zinnober9, with whom I have discussed the issue at their talk page where I have apologised for my impulsiveness and they have apologised for reverting me in the first place. So we are back to me having reverted Hijiri twice, as well as other editors also reverting Hijiri and asking that they take their concerns to the talk page (since the bold change to the article here is Hijiri's, not mine or anyone else's). Hijiri has now opened a discussion about their concerns at the talk page, so from my perspective that is where the discussion regarding this issue should continue. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I support the fact that the edit-warring appears to have been wildly misconstrued here. Hijiri too started no discussion before this report (but has done so 7 minutes after this report - why?), nor warned Adam for edit-warring, as can be seen by the lack of diffs in this report, even though Adam had already started a discussion about it on the talk page of the talk page of Zinnober9. (When starting an AN3 report, it actually states You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too.) Hiriji has now removed the content three times, more than the actual reverts by Adam to be considered, and he has now also been reverted again by an uninvolved editor. It takes more than one to edit-war, so I kindly recommend Hijiri to be careful of WP:BOOMERANG. Unless Hijiri reverts again, given Zinnober9's understanding of the edit, then the page should remain stable concerning the edit from here on out. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Please work this out on the talk page. User:Adamstom.97 should be careful about getting too class to the edge given their restriction which can be seen in WP:EDR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Manish2542 reported by User:Kingroyos (Result: Declined)

Page: Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Manish2542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139] 5 January 2019‎
2. [140] 12 January 2019‎
3. [141] 17 March 2019‎
4. [142] 31 March 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:
User is repeatedly removing well referenced contents without giving valid reasons and keeps reverting contributions made by others. I have tried to resolved the dispute amicably by trying to find the exact issue but his response has been ambiguous. Its seem that the user is not ready to corporate amicably and has regularly been involved in disruptive editing, edit warring and personal attacks in his Edit summary (See his contributions). The user has been previously blocked two times (See [145] and [146]). I would like a neutral person to step in and resolve the issue urgently.Kingroyos (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Declined. You've not attempted to formally engage them on the talk page of the said article. Start talk page discussions on the content issues; if the editor doesn't join you or if they go against consensus, come back. Lourdes 08:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Georg Wurst reported by User:Mean as custard (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Tom Bower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Georg Wurst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [147]
2. [148]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Comments:

Continued edit warring after expiry of previous temporary block and further warnings on user talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Given this user seems to be only here to attack the Middle East Eye, I think the next block should be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zacharyso1 reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: Withdrawn by Sir Joseph, editors committed to use talk page)

Page

Kosher wine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Zacharyso1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890495244 by Sir Joseph (talk)"
2. 17:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890493588 by Sir Joseph (talk) Per prior conversation, there are multiple sources that are more specific than yours. And no, the sky being blue isn't as obvious as the requirements for kosher wine, Sorry. I would like a moderator/chief editor to actually read the sources."
3. 17:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Requirements for being kosher */ Your sources are not incorrect, they are LESS SPECIFIC. The published books QUALIFY your sources. This isn't a difficult concept. Why don't you actually READ THE SOURCES before you state something like "I don't believe this is true.""
4. 16:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890455891 by Sir Joseph (talk) This is outrageous. Can we have a moderator step in here, please? There are two published sources that support that only sabbath-observant male Jews can handle the wine, while the only provide "source" doesn't even include the requirement for Sabbath observance."
5. 05:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890228796 by Sir Joseph (talk) There are literally two published sources that confirm this as true. Simply not believing something does not alter its veracity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Kosher wine. (TW)"
2. 18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Kosher wine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I issued warning to discuss, and I added refs to the article, he kept reverting without discussing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've stopped editing it, we've not moved onto the talk page. I'm new to the rules, so didn't understand all of the rules. However, it would be nice if an editor could actually read the multiple cited sources in order to make a decision on the correct content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso1 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that the sources you are using are factually incorrect. Which is why a more minimalist source would be best in any event. Regardless, you can't keep reverting edits. Maybe you should self-revert, that might help. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting that I've cited half a dozen sources, and you've cited none that have directly disputed them, yet they are, according you, factually incorrect. Very interesting, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso1 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I showed you several women who make wine, and I showed you sources, from Kosher certifying agencies who make no mention of those restrictions. That's called directly disputing. If a kosher certifying agency held that only males could work the fields, they would mention it in the article about kosher wine, but they don't. Regardless, this is not about dispute resolution, this is about you reverting without discussing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to withdraw this complaint if @Zacharyso1: commits to using the article's talk page to discuss the article before reverting again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:DooksFoley147 reported by User:Andygray110 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ronnie O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DooksFoley147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [150]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:

Firstly, I am aware that this account has only been opened since 25 March. However, I strongly suspect that this is the same user who has continuously made the same reversions and entered into countless edit wars over at least the last 18 months (mostly involving snooker pages). While I cannot categorically confirm, the style of writing and use of punctuation (in particular, full stops, question marks and exclamation marks at the end of sentences) makes me 99% sure this is the same user. A history of comments left on my talk page by other unregistered user(s) shows the same misuse of punctuation.

This user tends not to listen or engage in discussion before steaming ahead and making changes they deem appropriate, with little or no regard for the rules. I'm not saying to throw the book at them, but I have endlessly tried to explain to this user before that it is best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker about issues rather than continuous reverts or imposing their will on articles. I'm not the only user on WikiProject Snooker to be affected by this or have their changes reverted.

In this case, the user insists that a source (Cuetracker, which is on the blacklist) is reliable, is adding content claiming that it is sourced by Cuetracker (although, as it is on the blacklist, the addition clearly cannot be sourced, therefore the addition is unsourced). I have explained to the user now and in the past that Cuetracker is not a reliable source and cannot be used, and that the result they are trying to add is unreferenced, cannot be backed up by another source (because it does not exist), and have also advised that the competition page (Pontins Open) of the result they are trying to add IS sourced and does not include this result. Andygray110 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me there is nothing wrong with my style of writing. I asked one simple question that you did not answer. Why is Cuetracker used as a reference for some events and finals on here that are not sourced by any other site ?. Why is it ok to use it for some events and not others that is what I asked. Yes I only created my account a few days ago, but I am only here to help across a broad range of sports and I do not appreciate your criticism to be honest. DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I am only trying to help out on this site, using my own time to make these articles better. I really do not think I should be punished for trying to help in making Wikipedia better. I have always tried to act in a constructive manner with my edits and I do not think that is in question. DooksFoley147 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I concur with Andygray110's reading of the situation. List of world number one snooker players was recently semi-protected because the editor was making disruptive factually inaccurate edits as an anonymous IP editor, before registering an account to get a round the semi-protection. The Snooker project is only a small workforce that has to cover a lot of ground so we do welcome enthusiastic new editors into the fold, but at the same time one that pursues a non-collaborative unilateral agenda can cause huge disruption, and that is clearly the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It would also account for their keenness to become autoconfirmed. ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry am I not allowed to open an account ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You see Betty I am the odd one out here as you guys know each other. I am like the new kid in School so I would be wrong here anyway. The thing about it is I have noticed when people disagree with you, you will not acquiesce with them or change from your opinion. what you seem to want has to be final, that is not right either. On what grounds can you say I have an agenda ?. You don't even know me. I have no agenda I am here to try and makes these pages better. DooksFoley147 (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DooksFoley147, the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the typical approach to edits that are challenged on Wikipedia, meaning that if you made a contentious change, it's up to you to get consensus for that change before you make it again. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Further comment The disruption has now spread to Maximum break. DooksFoley147 keeps removing important contextual information from the article regarding the timing methodology. I have explained at Talk:Maximum_break#Fastest_maximum why this is important information i.e. when two distinct timing methodologies are utilised within the sport it is important to clarify which one the record relates to (because in theory you could end up with two different records!). The discussion on the talk page was started three days ago and yet instead of participating in the discussion DooksFoley147 has instead chose to bypass the BRD cycle and simply remove content yet again that has been a stable part of the article for almost a year. I accept that Wikipedia is not set in stone, but the removal of reliably sourced content that is a long-standing element of a stable article should be discussed if it is contested. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I see complaints about editing of three snooker articles:

• Ronnie O'Sullivan,
• Maximum break,
• List of world number one snooker players.

Is that the complete list you want reviewed for edit warring? Also, if you would like to introduce a previous pattern of anonymous edits as part of this report, can someone say which IPs are likely to be the same person? Not for purpose of blocking the IP, but just for the general pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP edits come from the following accounts: 92.251.229.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.251.131.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.83.249.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.251.188.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (taken from the history at List of world number one snooker players on 25 March 2019. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:DooksFoley147. Do you understand that this supposed tournament result by Ronnie O'Sullivan from the Pontins Autumn Open may be from a match that never occurred? Can you look at our article on the Pontins Open and find a victory by O'Sullivan in 1991? Probably not. It seems that DooksFoley147 is risking a block for edit warring and for adding unsourced information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That Pontins article documents the professional championship. Pontins used to run pro-am and amateur events too, and if O'Sullivan did indeed win the event in 1991 he would have been an amateur (he didn't turn pro until 1992). I am certainly willing to entertain the possibility, but this goes to the crux of this ANi report: it needs some solid sourcing before being added to Wikipedia. A single mention on a fansite (albeit one of the best ones out there) doesn't quite meet the threshold for WP:V. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and making unsourced changes. The user has continued to edit snooker articles without making any commitment to fix the problems with their edits, so there is little hope of any improvement. This statement on their talk page implies that they see no problem with their lack of sources. The user has also been steadily warring at Maximum break, where he takes out the information about the two different timing methods. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: No action for now)

Page: Toyota Hilux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]
5. [160]
6. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163] [164]

Comments:

U1Quattro decide to replace pictures on the Toyota Hilux page because they were "damaged" I clearly see any noticable damage in them. I kept telling him I will fix the picture up, create a talk discussion and now a edit warring incdient. Yet he insist to try and replace the picture over. I honestly don't care if this result both of us blocked, reason why we haven't said much in the talkpage because everything is going so fast and by the time I try to defend my statement he has already reverted the previously fine edits. --Vauxford (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The edits are by no means fine and violate WP:CARPIX. Official or not, this guideline is followed on almost every automobile page in Wikipedia. Yet @Vauxford: continues to persistently revert the edits instead of discussing on the talk page without any reasonable explanation. I don't see why should a rusty vehicle be placed as an infobox image. His claim of finding a Hilux in pristine condition as in the edit history is also wrong as there are clearly many images of good condition HiLux on wiki commons.

Diff of claim [165]U¹ _quattro TALK 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The CARPIX is only a essay, I'm allow to not follow it and I personally disagree what on there since it was written which favours to Australian photographers. I tried to make improvement but it went out of control after EurovisionNim gone overboard with it and defeat the whole purpose of why I what was trying to improve in the first place. You took my words out of proportion. --Vauxford (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about one's personal opinion and most of what the guideline states is followed on a wide scale while selecting images at Wikipedia. So I don't see why this shouldn't apply on the Toyota Hilux page.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you both violate 3RR so massively? It is a photo of a somewhat dirty truck, whether or not it's on the page is terrifically inconsequential, and unsurprisingly having an edit war has brought you no closer to a resolution. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've made my point. He refused to resolve it on the talk page and start an edit war just because of his personal opinion so there we have it.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I wanted him to at least wait until I did my solution to solve the problem and defend my reason why the photos should stay, but I didn't have chance to do so because the edit war we had was going fast. They might not show immediately but I made edits to the two pictures such as reducing the rust and dust on them which seem to have turn out nicely, see for yourself.--Vauxford (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You could have stopped edit warring for a moment and proposed the changes on the talk page. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

[166] [167] [168] as you can see, I tried doing that numorous but refuses to do so which sorta explain why it spiral out badly. I admit I should of let U1Quattro off and start the talkpage discussion much earlier. It was frustrating just how they clearly ignoring what I'm saying to try and prevent a edit war and continue on. --Vauxford (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The question is, why did you want that photo to stay when it isn't the best one at all? You clearly had no reason and no justification to keep that photo in the infobox. Your reason in the talk page is also not sufficient as are your reasons you presented for your edits. The way I see it, its more of a personal disagreement with the rules and biasedness with your favourite photographers which is clearly not allowed here.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise there won't be any photos of a single cab, the photo you were trying to replace was already used in the article. The article was fine as it is and wasn't breaking any of these guidelines which aren't actually guidelines and 80% of it just someone personal view of how things should be photographed and not thoroughly vetted by the community. --Vauxford (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There are better photos of the single cab in good condition on wiki and I did use a different photo later on. Yet you decided to revert the edits time and time again. Same with the dusty and rusted Hilux photo. The guidelines are true and are used on Wikipedia. They are generally acceptable so your grudge against them is uncalled for.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The obvious way for an admin to close this report would be to block both parties, since the problem seems likely to continue. If either of you wants to handle your dispute in the correct way, there is a page at WP:Dispute resolution. Let me know if you are wiling to try it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro The one you inserted is another doublecab and at the wrong angle. The pictures are not as dusty and rusted as they are now since I made alteration. We already try to solve the dispute on the talk page but nobody else seem to not care. Why can't you just be happy with the ones already on there, they been there for a good while now and isn't causing any problems. --Vauxford (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, your claim that the picture "isn't causing any problems" is not correct; it is causing an edit war. Try reading WP:Requests for comment and try to set up an RfC. This requires you to state a question, perhaps in one sentence. Then people give their opinions. There seem to be several people on the talk page; you can message them and ask them to join in. Let me know if I can help. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant by it wasn't causing problems except with U1Quattro. I sent a message on your talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why can't you just let them be replaced? the ones I put are of a good angle. There is no problem with them.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as a review of his talk page and edit history (if anyone has a couple of months to spare) will confirm, Vauxford has form, and in recent months appears to have been "getting more and more like the less collaborative version of himself". He has linked a huge number of "his" pictures to wikipedia car articles. Some of "his" pictures are competent and a few are really rather good: an awful lot more are not. He responds to attempts at discussion with increasingly mind-numbing aggression, stubbornness and arrogance. The result is that those of us with better things to do tend to wander of and do them. No one HAS to contribute to wikipedia. As far as pictures of cars are concerned, most of us leave other people to make an objective assessment of picture quality where one of the pictures being discussed is "one of ours". I have on occasion made an exception to the habit for Vauxford (and his (ex)chum EurovisionNim), because for these two wikipedia has become a personal vanity project. That really ain't how it's meant to be. If we just retained 10% of Vauxford's pictures linked to car entries, wikipedia quality would be enhanced and wikipedia readers would have every reasons to be grateful to the fellow. And over time 10% might reasonably become 15% or even 20%. But this refusal to acknowledge other folks' judgement, and the time consuming determination to insert "his own" (or EurovisionNim's) pictures, regardless of picture quality does wiki-readers no favours. The solution? In the first instance, that's really down to him. Regard Charles01 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors went way past 3RR, but in a spirit of optimism I'm closing this with no action. There is some hope of the Toyota Hilux picture being settled at Talk:Toyota Hilux#Photos. If that doesn't work, I'm sure we'll be back here again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Correctman reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Blocked)

Page

Emilian dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Northern Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Correctman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts at Emilian dialect

1. 22:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890411704 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)) Yes it is."
2. 23:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890535674 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))"
3. 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890537488 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))"
4. 00:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts at Northern Italy

1. 19:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890282137 by Dk1919 Franking (talk))"
2. 21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890343811 by Dk1919 Franking (talk) The subheading doesn't say minority or official languages. It says common languages. Please refrain from sabotaging what was already written. Italian is not a main language in everyparts of Italy. It is merely a language used by the government.)"
3. 5:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890282137 by Dk1919 Franking (talk))"
4. 14:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890462981 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(→‎3RR: new section)"
2. 14:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(→‎3RR)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also no attempt to have meaningful discussions after revert of my edit on my talk page [169]. Also has a history of edit warring.

Others involved @Ponyo:, @Dk1919 Franking:, @MarnetteD:. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In light of his most recent comment released on my talk page, which doesn't give much room for a civil discussion, I don't feel anymore like assuming good faith on his part, honestly. Even for someone with a vested agenda, that's some trollish behaviour, or it looks like it at least.--Dk1919 (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring and personal attacks, for example "You can have your bias but don't spread it to Wikipedia.", and "you are the one who is ill intentioned..You do not like that Northerners claim their language and identity.", "You freely display your Sicilian culture. Let others have theirs. Don't be a racist." The user has been warring to re-insert Youtube links to articles. Per the guideline at WP:YOUTUBE such links often have copyright concerns and certain fall under WP:ELNO in any case. The user continued to revert on 2 April after being warned by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Fineartsme reported by User:JarrahTree (Result: Page protected )

Page: Sukarno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fineartsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User add undocumented OR to the article Sukarno, and despite being offered information about 3RR - and being warned about adding unsubstantiated material about Sukarno, insists the warner is the vandal, and replies with shouting and reverse claims. JarrahTree 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Also - continues into IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.177.148.71 with exactly the same edit summary JarrahTree 01:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected by Oshwah for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Bobby Beausoleil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnpie1789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]
5. [175]
6. [176]
7. [177]
8. [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation"

Comments:
There is a longstanding dispute over the content of this article - a WP:BLP - and, in particular, the opening sentence. Beausoleil is a convicted and incarcerated murderer (one of the Manson Family), who has interests in music and art. Mnpie1789 has a keen interest in this article, and since 2016 has consistently sought to paint Beausoleil in the best possible light, by emphasising his artistic endeavours and minimising the fact that he is a convicted murderer. The issue has been discussed on the article talk page, and at WP:BLP/N here. Mnpie1789 has changed some of their earlier edits (for instance to remove direct references to court transcripts) but has edit-warred over others, notably the opening sentence of the article. Editors including BarrelProof, Zaereth, HammerFilmFan, LindsayH, DeXXus, and myself, have all taken the view that the opening sentence should indicate that his notability is as a convicted murderer, not as a musician/artist as Mnpie1789 would have it. However, Mnpie1789 continues to edit-war over the opening sentence, despite warnings and reverts by multiple editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to see this report ~ not for Ghmyrtle's action, but for the necessity of it. In a recent ANI report, i understood Mnpie1789 to be willing to work with the community to ensure that consensus was reached; it does not appear that he is willing to abide by community standards, consensus, and policy in trying to whitewash his favourite (by edit count of some two to one Bobby Beausoleil vs. every other topic) subject. I regret to say, this needs action. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Mnpie1789 seems very determined to fight against a clear consensus expressed by large number of editors, despite extensive attempts to resolve the matter in discussions on talk pages and noticeboards. The other editors have extensively and politely explained their views and referenced relevant guidelines. I am glad to see that Mnpie1789 has engaged actively in the discussions rather that just edit warring. There has also been some improvement of sourcing in the article that Mnpie1789 has contributed to. But Mnpie1789 seems determined to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to prevail on two aspects of the article by persistent edit warring. This shouldn't be allowed to continue indefinitely. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Unlike many threads on this noticeboard that I process, I have read the article and know about the subject because of its tenuous relationship with all things Led Zeppelin, though I don't believe I have directly edited Beausoleil's article which means I don't think I'm involved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 1 week)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Decline in insect populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a report about edit warring, not 3RR. Kingofaces is engaged in wholesale reverts and complex partial reverts. To show the reverts, the following focuses on three paragraphs and a blockquote.

Diffs. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1st edit (21:37, 4 March 2019, "Reviews and studies" section): Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation." 1st revert (23:50, 5 March 2019): Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation." 2nd revert (00:58, 11 March 2019): Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation." 3rd revert (01:24 and 01:29, 13 March 2019): Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation." Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless." 4th revert (19:34, 19:37, 19:44 and 19:48, 24 March 2019): Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates." Removed paragraph beginning: "The Entomological Society Krefeld produced a report in 2017 by studying their records of insect collections using malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany." Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..." Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation." 5th revert (01:56, 26 March 2019): Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates." Removed paragraph beginning: "The Entomological Society Krefeld produced a report in 2017 by studying their records of insect collections using malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany." Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation." Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..." 6th revert (04:19, 27 March 2019): Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates." Removed paragraph beginning: "The Entomological Society Krefeld produced a report in 2017 by studying their records of insect collections using malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany." Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation." Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..." 7th revert (18:47, 18:52 and 18:56, 31 March 2019) Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012 the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates." Removed: "A systematic review, 'Worldwide decline of the entomofauna', was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation." Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..."

Comments:
Kingofaces is repeatedly removing the same sources and text about studies from Decline in insect populations.

The article was created in February, and the constant reverting has stymied article development. I've several times prepared text only to find that the sentence or paragraph I wanted to expand had gone. In addition to removing a paragraph about a notable study—the Krefeld study (Hallmann et al. 2017, PLOS One)—seven times from the decline article, he has reverted eight times at Insect to remove it as a source: 23 Oct 2017; 28 Jan 2019; 29 Jan 2019; 31 Jan 2019; 1 Feb 2019; 2 Feb 2019; 10 Feb 2019; and 17 Feb 2019. He won't even allow a link to the decline article in the lead of Insect (diff).

I asked him twice on 27 March to revert himself at the decline article (04:28 and 04:32). He didn't and instead arrived again on 31 March with another series of reverts. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. If the editor realizes they've gone against talk page consensus and agree to not continue the edit-warring, the block can be lifted immediately. Otherwise, this is going to soon get elongated into an indefinite block. Lourdes 08:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

After the block

I didn't get a chance to respond to what has amounted to directly misrepresenting me in the few hours that passed since filing, so I have to do that here now after the fact. In my unblock review, Doc James also pointed out there was not a significant concern in my main edits listed at this case, so those comments are a good starting summary of what I'm trying to work with at least.

It’s quite concerning that SlimVirgin tried to pad this request in such a manner and hide the underlying problem and point the finger at those trying to deal with it. Most of this just shows article development that's been done in many edits (and me trying to manage others edit warring without running to AE all the time). To start, I had been requested by another editor as part of talk page discussion to make the most recent round of edits (If you feel my revert restored any other "outright failed verification", then pls either specify, or maybe just re-do that part of your edit & see if others accept it.)[180] where no further direct edits were going to be made after that last request, yet SlimVirgin immediately went here to try to sanction me despite being around for those comments. That’s pure WP:GAMING omitting that here. For their comments about March 27, they left out my responses[181][182] specifically saying I couldn't undo those edits because WP:ONUS was very clear SV needed to gain consensus for the edits, not blanket revert them back in even though they made a pointy edit summary telling me to gain consensus instead that was gaming onus policy.

With edits before that invitation, if you actually read the talk page, I had been removing these related edits per ONUS when editors did not gain consensus for them on the talk page, and dealing with editors who habitually avoid that policy is just messy no matter how you approach things. Some of my edits were removals, others were attempts to fix specific issues so it wouldn't have to be removed. Everything Slimvirgin shows is basically an example of, "Look at all the times Kingofaces had to deal with edit warring and remind editors to use the talk page to gain consensus." If I'm removing content editors refuse to discuss, no one can claim consensus on those removed edits, and no one should be punished for following ONUS policy. Usually I would make small edits so the edit summaries explained the specific issues in the new edits I was disputing rather than blanket reverts, easily discussed on the talk page, etc. so there was no excuse to ignore them.[183][184][185][186][187][188] This one is one SV brought up a lot, but it was an edit the failed WP:V in that it didn't specifically deal with insects (only invertebrates in the sourced statement), yet it was edit warred all those times without response.

Editors basically ignored ONUS policy with blatant WP:Stonewalling behavior by blanket reverting all those edits I listed at once with dismissive edit summaries:

• March 4 FeydHuxtable: revert unconstructive edit
• March 6 FeydHuxtable: restore main stream science version, per talk
• March 11 Andrew Davidson: Re citizen science, rv, &c.
• March 13 FeydHuxtable: revert unconstructive edits...
• March 24 SlimVirgin: rv; please gain consensus for these changes
• March 26 Andrew Davidson: ...ce, rv, &c.
• March 27 FeydHuxtable: restore the more NPOV stable version per clear concensus on talk, while trying to retain the good edits of ‎Gandydancer & King
• April 1 Andrew Davidson: add new 130 year study, restore sourced content, &c.

Sometimes I did undo the entire edit trying to prevent editors trying to horse in huge swathes of text without consensus, but I usually tried to stick to those smaller edit summaries above pointing out the specific problems. In every case, I had already reminded editors to follow WP:ONUS and gain consensus for the edits they wanted, but they reverted back in dismissively like above anyways refusing to engage on talk.

An example is this talk section (and full section so far). After still running into issues with editors not addressing content and just reverting it back in, I brought it up at the talk page for the March 13 edit. No responses until March 24 when SlimVirgin joined in doing the same kind of blanket edit warring before I specifically pinged them despite their complaints here about those very actions they partook in disrupting the topic. I didn’t get any responses from others until March 26, two weeks after the most recent reverts. In talk discussion to date, not a single editor has tried to even discuss the specific edits buried in those blanket reverts despite me repeatedly asking them to do so. When I finally got a response from another editor they indicated they were only doing their mass reverts of me just to include two studies, and still wouldn’t comment on all the other things they reverted back in.[189] Then there's more non-answers like there's been plenty of response while still avoiding the specific content.[190] In short, there was nothing on the talk page to even come close to beginning to form any sort of consensus, and I was left following WP:ONUS policy since editors made it clear they weren't going to specifically address the edits despite the blanket reverts.

I asked quite a bit for help at AE, etc. with this kind of blanket revert mentality editors have adopted in the topic, but it's just been left alone to make things more toxic in the subject and difficult to get any consensus-building done because of it. I don't think AN3 is really suited for trying to address all that behavior with all editors that resulted in way too many reverts with me trying to handle that mostly alone (in article edits, but others were on the talk page), so my only request in that regard is for more admins to patrol the topic to keep the kind of stuff I've been having to deal with tamped down when editors blanket revert.

On SV's list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just additional comments on the large list where it makes it look like I'm blanket reverting due to the large amount of edit warred content I tried to handle and intermittent edits: March 4-11: The new page has been created as a WP:POVFORK to circumvent consensus over at Insect, so I restored to the consensus text from there reminding edits to gain consensus for the new edits. Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless." This failed WP:V and was repeatedly blanket reinserted without anyone addressing it on talk despite repeated requests.[191] Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany." A WP:PRIMARY study, which generally are not considered reliable in scientific topics. No secondary sources scientific sources were ever included until very recently with no attempts to craft content with them on the talk page. I eventually let this one be to focus on the other problems. March 13: Article development was moving ahead a bit, but these were removing the previous primary study problems that still had to be hashed out on the talk page. March 24-31: First two bullets are the same problem as March 4-11. Removed blockquote beginning . . . The underlying study has already been discussed as problematic by other sources, and needed consensus on specific use. Another ONUS removal[192] The blockquoting wasn't needed either since the content had been summarized elsewhere, and I wasn't removing the study. Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation." This was only removing unneeded exposition in source titles and kept getting reverted with no response.[193] No engagement on talk on this either. Pretty much all of the things in that list were either not addressed at all on the talk page despite my requests, or things that hadn't gained consensus, so I was just following ONUS policy and asking other editors blanket reverting to do the same. That obviously got to be too many reverts trying to deal with all the edit warring, but that list includes a lot of content that morphed over time too through normal editing. People edit warring over unverified content or requiring

The numerous edits at Insect prior to the insect decline article where mostly due to edit warring by an IP and another editor on the primary study and blanket reverting in a bunch of stuff without really addressing specifics on the talk page. Multiple editors were opposed to those changes on the talk page, and the page was protected for awhile due to the content being edit warred in and related soapboxing rather than trying to gain consensus. I suggest reading my edit summaries in those actual diffs[194][195] SlimVirgin references as they basically laying out that the editors needed to use the talk page and gain consensus on something rather than mass reverting everything in.

I intended this to be a one-time response to clarify the specifics of what content/talk discussion actually was being worked on, and while I can respond to further clarification related to edit warring if need be, we're already getting to the point it's way too much content to try to digest for AN3, and I don't really want to drag this out further either. I had already quit trying to remove the content directly after my edits prior to March 29, and was just following up on that last request on the talk page to make them one more time, so this filing was very tendentious with that in mind, much less the silliness of the edits being reinserted and not addressed.

Continuing problems with Slimvirgin

For background, I’ve had to deal with hounding by SlimVirgin due to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, etc. for years now. It got to the point I had to propose what morphed into the aspersions principle at the GMO/pesticide ArbCom case in part because of interactions with primarily two editors, one of them being SlimVirgin.[196] This business of them going after editors to win disputes rather than focusing on specific content has been a frequent problem too.[197] This filing gets to an extreme case of Slimvirgin directly violating that principle (the subject of insect decline has pesticides as a main cause) by trying to get an editor blocked through directly omitting details to make it look like my most recent edits that were specifically requested on the talk page were edit warring. If they hadn't filed this AN3, I would have been (and now am) working on what's going to now be lot of legwork in an RfC to try to deal with all the blanket reverted content rather than edit warring if someone reinserted the content again. Even with that going on, they used direct confusion through violating an ArbCom principle to try to sanction an editor. Being as this occurred at an admin board, it should probably be brought up here first since this is where it occurred even if it might be more in AE territory. I would like the continued attempts by Slimvirgin to still cast aspersions towards me to stop either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is so bizarre that I don't know how to respond. Pinging the admins who dealt with the issue, Lourdes and Doc James, and the editors mentioned above, FeydHuxtable and Andrew Davidson. Suffice to say I had nothing to do with the GMO case or the aspersions principle. Hounding him for years? I've had very little to do with Kingofaces; in fact I usually try to stay away from him. The 2014 AN/I he links to above was my offering advice to him and EllenCT (during his attempt to have her topic banned) to open a COIN if they wanted to discuss whether he had a COI, rather than accuse him of it elsewhere. I offer that advice to everyone.

As for this AN3 report, Kingofaces describes it as me violating ASPERSIONS "by trying to get an editor blocked through directly omitting details to make it look like [his] most recent edits that were specifically requested on the talk page were edit warring". That's a serious allegation offered with no evidence. No relevant details were omitted; he wasn't asked to make those edits; he was interpreting WP:ONUS to mean that he personally had to approve all edits; and he kept on reverting. He reverted so much that I decided to report it. End of story. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

"Bizzare" is just the word for it unfortunately. I've gotten to know King quite well over the last few months, and have spent several hours writing long diff rich responses to his half truths and mis-representations. At this point I'm starting to think responding in the normal collegial manner is a waste of time. On the subject of bug decline, King doesn't seem to agree with anything that conflicts with his pre-conceptions, no matter how well balanced and well sourced ones arguments. As King's bug decline related AE's show, few if anyone takes his wall of text posts seriously. It's a shame; a review of his contribs suggest that on several other topics, he comes across as a highly intelligent and knowledgeable academic, who makes lots of good and helpful comments. I'm hoping the bug decline issue might be settled by RfC soon, so there can be an end to this time wasting nonsense. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I think that there is some amount of blame on both "sides". I had advised KofA that he was doing too much reverting and he needed to dial it back, and he disregarded what I said. I also think that he is wrong about WP:ONUS; there is, at this point, about the same amount of onus and need for discussion on the part of all of the editors there. On the other hand, there was no mention in the original AN3 filing that KofA had previously reached out to SV at her talk page. And it is simply false to claim that KofA was reverting "against consensus". In reality, other editors at the article talk page had expressed agreement with some of KofA's arguments, something that was absent from the AN3 filing, and I think that a case can be made that there was no clear consensus going either way. In any case, I think that this is a complex content dispute that cannot be properly dealt with at AN3. I see that Doc James set a requirement of a content RfC as a condition of unblocking, and I think that's a good idea. Where editors at the page are disputing over which sources to cite, another good option might be to ask at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in this issue, but popped over here when I noticed that KofA was flagged as a blocked user (my prefs mark blocked users in article histories and such). Looking at the above, I have to say that this style of reverting and personally attacking people in very aggressive ways is his classic tactic. He is particularly aggressive when it comes to his admitted area of academic interest -- insects -- but this is his style in general. I won't go into the nuances of my own experiences dealing with this editor, but given that he is now going after a longstanding and highly respected editor who is anything but an edit-warrior, suffice it to say this is not simply a matter of "both sides" being equally at fault when KofA is involved; it's his regular style to take a sledgehammer to swat a fly. He needs to stay blocked for a good long while in order to see what consensus on these articles develops absent his highly toxic style of interaction. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Montanabw: He was unblocked around 20 hours ago. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically each side should prepare a "prefered version". Once those are ready they can be presented side by side and discussed. The wider community can than weight in on the merits of each as the starting point for further improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Regular contributors are attempting to build a 'preferred version' in main space, with citations instead of !votes, the usual practice. The solution would be for King to work in draft space on his preferred version. cygnis insignis 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• comment: I read the talk page, then read it again after following the edits. The user recently introduced themself to me, in defence of another user [which is fine], it did not go well and it is worth mentioning that is what piqued my interest in this (a possible conflict of interest). In my view, the structure of the user's contributions on that talk page closely aligns with denialism, eg. the same strategies employed for 'lead in motor fuel' and refined ever since. The terms and phrases are those used in scientific evaluation of other works from a conservative position, but in service of a reactionary or coi motivation. The most part of discussion points are off-the-cuff responses with the grotesque use of links to policy and guidelines, as if to pre-empt their being notified of the obvious contravention of them, and rounds of circular reference to 'we [King~] have already established cannot be done. The contributions have greatly disrupted the article development, the user is not there to improve it and seems to have lost sight of what 'we' actually do here. It's not bizarre to me, it is sad or a parody gone wrong, or a consequence of living during an extinction event. I do, of course, want the apologists to be right, this is all overstated. cygnis insignis 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This was a very clear case of one editor attempting to OWN an article someone else had created, and trying to do that via serial reverting, despite being asked at least twice to revert himself. He regularly distorts policy, misrepresents editors, and weaponizes WP:ASPERSIONS, while often violating it himself, as he did above. I've been hounding him for years? It's laughable. I've stayed away from numerous articles and discussions because I'd prefer not to interact with him. He reached out to me on my talk page? He gave me a DS alert. Here's the discussion, and it's more of the same misrepresentation. Others are reverting; he is not. When he does it, it's called something else. I reverted once at that article, and he accused me of edit warring. He reverted seven times, but that's okay. No one should defend the distortions in his post above. Every time he's defended, he thinks it's okay to behave like this the next time. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A very clear case of edit warring, or there is no such thing. And tacit endorsement is not helping anybody, especially the user. cygnis insignis 19:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I specifically linked the diff and quoted when I was asked to make those edits. That you're still specifically ignoring it is why it is being brought up here for directly trying to misrepresent me at this filing as that is a very serious offense for blatantly violating WP:NPA, especially in this topic where you've had to be cautioned about misrepresenting editors. Every time I have been citing ONUS, it has not been that edits needed my approval, but that you and others actually needed to discuss the specific edits on the talk page, which you largely refused to do continuing to add those things in (with responses pretty much being nope, you gain consensus instead) despite my attempts at engagement. You're already aware of that from our discussion on your talk page, so your comment is concerning. I was following through on that policy when I made actual additions where the onus was on me too, asking what issues were arising with my edits, etc.

As for the ANI, you were not just "giving advice". That's background that shouldn't need to be rehashed at AN3, but you were frequently hounding myself and other editors about having a COI and casting aspersions about that. I can pull up more diffs on that if need be, but the point is that I specifically proposed the aspersions principle in response to your behavior, and the other main editor was banned from that too. You were desyopped once awhile ago for abusing the administrative process[198], a string of ANIs where you've been cautioned for still pursuing this behavior,and now we're left with this loose end of you directly misprepresenting editors to file this. I already clarified what I actually was doing in my edits and where I got into trouble in the context of issues in the entire topic, so I wouldn't be posting here anymore if that was all that was left. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here it is again! "especially in this topic where you've had to be cautioned about misrepresenting editors"; "frequently hounding myself and other editors"; "I specifically proposed the aspersions principle in response to your behavior". This is appalling! Please provide evidence for each of these three points. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B reported by User:Dusti (Result: Already semied)

Page

WBEY-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) to 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Updated station profile with updated and accurate information"
   2. 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Updated site"
2. 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Message re. WBEY-FM (HG) (3.4.6)"
2. 04:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. WBEY-FM (HG) (3.4.6)"
3. 04:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on WBEY-FM. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I would actually be in violation of 3RR if I reverted them again. They're adding promotional information into the page and not adhering to WP:ADVERT or WP:CITE. Perhaps a semi-protect would be sufficient? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated 3RR lurker here; IP 2600:1003:b119:a317:6ce6:bba7:58b4:1a7 also appears to be involved. Same edits. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Oshwah. Another approach would have been to block this IP as well as Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B119:A317:6CE6:BBA7:58B4:1A7. But both IPs seem to be directed to this one article, so semiprotection does the job. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:ImaArianator reported by User:Aoi (Result: Page protected )

Page

Sweetener (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ImaArianator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890798909 by Aoi (talk) See the source"
2. 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890781661 by Calebh12 (talk) unless the source calls it a trap album then it can stay"
3. 13:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890771151 by Calebh12 (talk) "Sets her sights on conquering trap" doesn't make it a trap album"
4. 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890752803 by Aoi (talk) Pls, read the source; it calls it a pop-R&B crossover album and the trap review only states that Ari proves that trap is the new pop and that she uses the Southern hip hop genre on some songs on the album"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR given here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected You know something, when I get a report that has nothing against the "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" I feel like closing the report as no action or WP:BOOMERANGing the filer. Anyway, full-protected for three days - you all need to go to the talk page. I could block ImaArianator, but then I'd have to block Aoi and Calebh12 for edit-warring too. That's far too many blocked editors, and since nobody else is actively editing the article, protection is the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• I've blocked ImaArianator as a sock and changed the protection to semi.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Thenabster126 reported by User:Lamberd (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Chechens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thenabster126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring. Persecution 1 2

Lamberd (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Warned I warned both users, but then I got distracted. This has been going on for close to a month without any evidence of discussion on the article talk page. I'm going to advise User:Thenabster126 that they need to get consensus for their changes on the article talk page, or they will be blocked. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours – Long running war on whether Chechnya is in Eastern Europe. Lamberd says yes but Thenabster126 says no. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Isold1 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Spindle Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Isold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I'm a big fan of assuming good faith and not treating this place as "request for banhammers", but somebody reverting XLinkBot and contributing prose like "Spindle Network is a global network of creatives: writers, photographers, stylists, fashion designers, illustrators, artists, musicians, producers and models. Developed from Spindle Magazine’s core readership, its network includes some of the globes most talented visionaries of popular youth culture and the rising stars of tomorrow." needs a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ban kavalir reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)

First report

Page

Triune Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC) to 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 00:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891003218 by Havsjö (talk) User uses terms not mentioned in both sources (one relevant other unreliable). User marks contemporary as well as relevant sources as Unreliable but uses sources with proven errors, user deleted parts of cited text (Frankopan)"
   2. 00:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "added first coat of arms with the unified representation of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia"
   3. 00:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 01:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ minor edit"
   5. 02:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ added period sections, new text with new sources. Added Austro-Slavism"
   6. 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "minor edit of sections"
   7. 02:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Added linguistic and historic source. The article should focus more on the terms and usage of the term Triune Kingdom, rather then history (since articles on the Triune Kingdom in periods of 1848-1867 and 1868-1918 all ready exist)"
2. 00:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted same reason. Two sources which don't correlate with terms used and cited by the user. Second source shows errors false dates and statements (example Party of rights is cited as successor of the Illyrian movement, which all scientific researchers dispute), probably due to lack of any sources cited in the book itself"
3. 23:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890999335 by Havsjö (talk) First source which you fabricated (which is a scientific article) doesn't mention Nationalist, the second which is not relevant due to errors such as Illyrian movement being in 1848 but was banned and ended in 1843. Don't mention Illyrians as nationalists. Both mention that nationalism started in 1861 with two movements. Also since the founder of Croatian Nationalism, Starčević started in 1861"
4. 23:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted text (SECOND FABRICATION), user claims the term Croatian Nationalist in 1848 is cited, which is not present in the text. The text shows that the first Nationalist movements started in 1861. Also the cited source is irrelevant due to errors. For example it states that the Illyrian movement existed in 1848, while in 1843 it was banned and its founders ended the project (most notably Gaj)."
5. 23:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User found FABRICATING second source, the Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Two-Volume Set, p-105 doesn't mention Illyrian movement as nationalist (also it ended in 1843 prior to the revolutions of 1848)"
6. 23:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User FABRICATED ANOTHER source! In the Encyclopedia of Nationalism p-105 it doesn't mention Nationalists in 1848, but Starčević in 1861. User continues to fabricate text and sources"
7. 23:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "minor Triune Kingdom"
8. Consecutive edits made from 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 22:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User FABRICATED segments of the text using sources which say different. The User has been cited for fabrication in the TALK PAGE (to be more ironic the User fabricated Croatian Nationalists in the year 1848, when the founder of Croatian nationalism started in 1861)"
   2. 22:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Added crown union of Croatia and Hungary 1868-1918, since in the period of 1848-1868 it was not part of the crown union"
9. 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "added contemporary sources for usage in 1527! Deleted FABRICATED! text by user Havsjö (text sourced, but the sources don't correlate with the text), added terms and text from the mentioned sources"
10. 22:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890992414 by Havsjö (talk) reverted user deleted relevant sources, FABRICATED! sourced text which the sources did not confirm resulting in bias text"
11. 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted, user FABRICATED! parts of the text (added sourced terms which the sources do not mention), the user deleted relevant sources to make the text bias (once again). Removed the first mention from 1527 and Bojničić surce"
12. 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ deleted Croatian nationalists since the source Korunić (p 12-13) doesn't mention them nor such term, added correct term from the source (Delegates of the Sabor and unification). No other text changed"
13. Consecutive edits made from 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890983793 by Havsjö (talk) Reverted since user deleted sourced text (from two editors). No sources or text were deleted by myself, reverted part of the sourced text which the user deleted to make the article bias (once again Bojničić and 1527 first mention and usage by the Habsburgs see EDIT HISTORY)"
    2. 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Deleted text with Croatian nationalist since the source it states, doesn't mention them!!! Added correct text from the same source (Peić)"
    3. 21:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ added first usage, earlier deleted by user which is sourced (Bojničić)"
14. 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890982237 by Havsjö (talk) User deleted and reverted two editors texts to make the article bias. Didn't add a single source and deleted sourced materials which have the first mention of the usage to make the article more bias (user has done it in several similar articles but not contributed to them)"
15. 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890981670 by Havsjö (talk) Reverted text possible edit war by user Havsjö, who deleted relevant sources"
16. 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to the last edit done by Jebcubed, User Havsjö deleted text with sources to make the article more bias. Deleted Bojničić source (PS since he doesn't know Croatian history, he is one of the main heraldists of the KuK monarchy, as well as director of the Royal Archives)"
17. 20:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890974126 by Havsjö (talk) Please stop deleting sourced material for bias terms. User deleted crucial sources with first mentioned usage (...since 1527 with the Habsburgs started the implementation of the name Triune Kingdom ...)"
18. 19:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "User on purpose deleted sourced material. He deleted the first official usage of the name, disregarding dr. Ivan Bojničić pl. Kninski source"
19. 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "The previous user deleted whole section of sourced texts. The text is returned. No edits on previous texts were added"
20. 07:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */ added sources and text for usage in history"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring on an epic scale and continuing personal attacks in edit-summaries, for which he got blocked on 16 March by EdJohnston. Dr. K. 05:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Second report

Page

Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 00:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890983109 by Havsjö (talk) reverted User deleted official flag (which is sourced) used in the period of the article (1680) and added flag which was used in different period (only during 1852), see TALK PAGE on 1848-1867 period"
   2. 00:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Symbols */ added gallery for symbols (coat of arms and flags used in the period of 1527-1848)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890974397 by Havsjö (talk) The texts regarding the period of 1848-1867 are in a separate article with more sources, info and related material. The text you deleted is sourced and for this period. SEE TALK PAGE!"
   2. 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "added correct flag (used from 17th century until 1848) with sources"
   3. 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 19:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890973309 by Havsjö (talk) Once again see TALK PAGE! User deletes sources disregards exsistance of other articles (1848-1867), disregards historic periods, disregards relevant sources"
4. 19:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890972094 by Havsjö (talk) see Talk page and start conversation there. Also you have deleted new text, sources and coat of arms added"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890969668 by Havsjö (talk) Once again See TALK PAGE (1848 period in separate article) before edit war, reverted to previous state"
   2. 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "added new coat of arms (official used from 1624-1848) with sources"
6. 19:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890962627 by Havsjö (talk) See TALK PAGE (1848 period in separate article) before edit war, reverted to previous state"
7. 17:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Once again see TALK PAGE before starting an edit war. Article reverted to correct last source. User deleted sourced material, added life span of other articles (1848-1867), deleted correct flag"
8. 10:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "reverted to correct last source. User deleted sourced material, added life span of other articles (1848-1867), deleted correct flag, added unexisting flag start TALK PAGE"
9. 07:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Correct flag added, correct dates until 1848 when the Triune Kingdom was proclaimed ending the CU with Hungary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

And another article. What can I say? I simply haven't seen this before. Dr. K. 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 09:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Havsjö reported by User:Havsjö (Result: Warning)

I have have been embroiled in a (frankly embarrassing) massive edit-war on the Triune Kingdom page. I was recommended by a third user I thought was an admin to notify about it here and pledge not to repeat such actions again. I will gladly receive a (hopefully temporary) block. But I will also link to this talk page of this third person here, in hope that someone third-party (with expertise or authority) will take a look at what has been written here and take some kind of stance or "closer look" at what has been going on several pages. User_talk:Dr.K.#Reports_of_edit_wars_and_fabricating_texts_to_make_them_more_bias --Havsjö (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this editor has responded to my advice, and since he has pledged not to edit-war further, a block of his account at this stage would be punitive, rather than preventative. Also, there is no edit of his remaining at any of the articles in dispute. All disputed articles have been reverted to versions by Ban kavalir. Ben kavalir, however, does not appear to have followed my advice to self-revert. Dr. K. 09:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Warned. Self-reporting is refreshing. El_C 09:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)